During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws?
It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause the audience to go and
commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, can it?
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
On 29 Jun 2025 at 13:50:13 BST, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The Kneecap case should be interesting on this point. I think the
prosecution could flounder on 2 points:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >>decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
You regularly castigate people for making claims about the "majority"
of people yet you do it here yourself. FWIW, I suspect that only a tiny minority of decent people in the UK would find Vylan's chant acceptable
in any way.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >>decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
You regularly castigate people for making claims about the "majority"
of people yet you do it here yourself. FWIW, I suspect that only a
tiny minority of decent people in the UK would find Vylan's chant
acceptable in any way.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
You regularly castigate people for making claims about the "majority"
of people yet you do it here yourself. FWIW, I suspect that only a
tiny minority of decent people in the UK would find Vylan's chant
acceptable in any way.
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
You regularly castigate people for making claims about the "majority"
of people yet you do it here yourself. FWIW, I suspect that only a
tiny minority of decent people in the UK would find Vylan's chant
acceptable in any way.
Op 30/06/2025 om 08:27 schreef Martin Harran:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death,
death to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot
cause the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the
Israeli army, can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of
most decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in
Gaza.
You regularly castigate people for making claims about the
"majority" of people yet you do it here yourself. FWIW, I suspect
that only a tiny minority of decent people in the UK would find
Vylan's chant acceptable in any way.
To be fair, Glasto is culturally and politically irrelevant and the middle-class gammons who go there are too drunk and stoned to pay
attention to lyrics.
I am more worried about the fact that you can say "kill your MP" and
get away with it, in a shithole country like this where MPs are
actually killed.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death,
death to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot
cause the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the
Israeli army, can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of
most decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in
Gaza.
Who is this Bob Vylan of which you speak? Would this be the drummer
who works under the stage name and persona of Bobby Vylan or the
guitarist who works under the stage name and persona of Bobby Vylan?
Were these comment made by the actors or by the characters they
portray?
While we are at it, why don't we mention Kneecap?[1] And Lorraine
Kelly?
Lorraine Kelly, much to the annoyance of HMRC established in court
some years ago that the Lorraine Kelly who fronts a daytime TV show
is a persona, created and owned by Lorraine Kelly but is not, in fact Lorraine Kelly. Kneecap is an act and the participants all have stage
names. Ricky Gervaise is an act, created by Ricky Gervaise: has
anybody ever seen the real Ricky Gervaise?
Go back a little further and the Sex Pistols also outraged and
offended under their personas as a very erudite John Lydon (who went
under the persona of Johnny Rotten) explains in, amongst other places
BBC Radio 4 Turning Point[2] except, wait a moment, it's not John
Lydon, it's Jon Culshaw under the persona of John Lydon - but does
that make the argument any less - or more - potent?
So... Bob Vylan. Who actually said what about what and what does it
matter?
Nick [1]<https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/jun/27/kneecap-on-
palestine -protest-and-their-satirical-intent> [2]<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001ts47>
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
You regularly castigate people for making claims about the "majority"
of people yet you do it here yourself. FWIW, I suspect that only a
tiny minority of decent people in the UK would find Vylan's chant
acceptable in any way.
On 2025-06-30, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>> can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
You regularly castigate people for making claims about the "majority"
of people yet you do it here yourself. FWIW, I suspect that only a
tiny minority of decent people in the UK would find Vylan's chant
acceptable in any way.
I suspect that you are mistaken.
Meanwhile, in Israel they're singing this: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_weAnUwbdkg>
On 17:21 29 Jun 2025, Nick Odell said:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause >>>the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli
army, can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >>>decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Who is this Bob Vylan of which you speak? Would this be the drummer who
works under the stage name and persona of Bobby Vylan or the guitarist
who works under the stage name and persona of Bobby Vylan? Were these
comment made by the actors or by the characters they portray?
While we are at it, why don't we mention Kneecap?[1] And Lorraine
Kelly?
Lorraine Kelly, much to the annoyance of HMRC established in court some
years ago that the Lorraine Kelly who fronts a daytime TV show is a
persona, created and owned by Lorraine Kelly but is not, in fact
Lorraine Kelly. Kneecap is an act and the participants all have stage
names. Ricky Gervaise is an act, created by Ricky Gervaise: has anybody
ever seen the real Ricky Gervaise?
Go back a little further and the Sex Pistols also outraged and offended
under their personas as a very erudite John Lydon (who went under the
persona of Johnny Rotten) explains in, amongst other places BBC Radio 4
Turning Point[2] except, wait a moment, it's not John Lydon, it's Jon
Culshaw under the persona of John Lydon - but does that make the
argument any less - or more - potent?
So... Bob Vylan. Who actually said what about what and what does it
matter?
Nick [1]<https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/jun/27/kneecap-on-
palestine -protest-and-their-satirical-intent>
[2]<https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001ts47>
Could that mean the liability for a post to ULM lies with the persona
and not the author behind the persona? The mind boggles at the
possibilities!
On 30/06/2025 09:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-30, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death >>>> to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause >>>> the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli
army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >>>> decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
You regularly castigate people for making claims about the "majority"
of people yet you do it here yourself. FWIW, I suspect that only a
tiny minority of decent people in the UK would find Vylan's chant
acceptable in any way.
I suspect that you are mistaken.
The Vylan chant seems to be getting more attention from pompous
politicians than the continuing slaughter in Gaza. The BBC are expected
to offer grovelling apologies to government ministers, but actually they
owe an apology to the nation for refusing to screen "Gaza: Doctors Under Attack" which may now be broadcast by Channel 4.
We have a craven, cowardly BBC which really ought to tell the PM and the
Home Secretary to fuck right off, at times like these.
On 09:33 30 Jun 2025, Ottavio Caruso said:
[quoted text muted]
I too find Kneecap's slogan "Kill your MP" highly provocative.
On 30 Jun 2025 at 08:27:10 BST, Martin Harran wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Again, the context is I think important.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:56:16 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 30/06/2025 08:27, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death >>>> to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause >>>> the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>>> can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >>>> decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
You regularly castigate people for making claims about the "majority"
of people yet you do it here yourself. FWIW, I suspect that only a
tiny minority of decent people in the UK would find Vylan's chant
acceptable in any way.
What does "acceptable" mean in this context?
The issue here is not my definition of "acceptable", it's your
definition of "decent people" which seems to mean people who agree
with you.
Unacceptable if uttered by a politician or a newsreader or a Catholic
priest.
You clearly can't stop scratching that itch even though scratching
such itches generally just makes them worse.
But acceptable to most of the audience at a mere pop festival
who expect some controversial statements as well as songs.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 08:36:01 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-06-30, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death >>>> to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause >>>> the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>>> can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >>>> decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
You regularly castigate people for making claims about the "majority"
of people yet you do it here yourself. FWIW, I suspect that only a
tiny minority of decent people in the UK would find Vylan's chant
acceptable in any way.
I suspect that you are mistaken.
Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion but the point is that
you do recognise it as *your opinion*, you do not claim to speak on
behalf of other people as Todal does.
On 01/07/2025 09:05, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:56:16 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 30/06/2025 08:27, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>What does "acceptable" mean in this context?
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death,
death to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot
cause the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the
Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of
most decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in
Gaza.
You regularly castigate people for making claims about the "majority"
of people yet you do it here yourself. FWIW, I suspect that only a
tiny minority of decent people in the UK would find Vylan's chant
acceptable in any way.
The issue here is not my definition of "acceptable", it's your
definition of "decent people" which seems to mean people who agree with
you.
As is yours.
But you're wrong - the issue is the meaning of "acceptable". The fact
that some chanting at Glastonbury is unacceptable to Lisa Nandy and
other politicians does not make it unacceptable to the public at large.
We are being asked to protect the delicate sensibilities of the
murderous Israeli army.
Unacceptable if uttered by a politician or a newsreader or a Catholic
priest.
You clearly can't stop scratching that itch even though scratching such
itches generally just makes them worse.
You think any Catholic priest might one day speak out against genocide
in Gaza? That will be the day. But maybe you're right. Catholic priests
will just get worse and worse.
But acceptable to most of the audience at a mere pop festival who
expect some controversial statements as well as songs.
On 29 Jun 2025 at 13:50:13 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
I think if the fight between Hamas and the IDF was more equal it could be interpreted as (illegal) support for Hamas. But, as it is, supernatural forces
are probably more of a threat to the IDF than Hamas is, so I think it would be
hard to interpret the slogan as supporting Hamas. I don't think it does much for the anti-genocide cause though. Personally I would wonder if Mr Vylan is actually working for the pro-Israeli propagandists, but then I'm cynical.
On 29/06/2025 14:16, Roger Hayter wrote:glastonbury-bbc-keir-starmer-idf-israel-b2780332.html
On 29 Jun 2025 at 13:50:13 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>The statement now issued by the band seems more intelligent than
wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli
army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of
most decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
I think if the fight between Hamas and the IDF was more equal it could
be interpreted as (illegal) support for Hamas. But, as it is,
supernatural forces are probably more of a threat to the IDF than Hamas
is, so I think it would be hard to interpret the slogan as supporting
Hamas. I don't think it does much for the anti-genocide cause though.
Personally I would wonder if Mr Vylan is actually working for the
pro-Israeli propagandists, but then I'm cynical.
anything we've heard from the likes of Lisa Nandy or any BBC
spokespeople or, worse of all, from the Chief Rabbi. I suppose there is
a widespread assumption that a pop performer will be too dim to string a sentence together, but this is proof to the contrary.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/bob-vylan-
quote
“Today, a good many people would have you believe a punk band is the
number one threat to world peace,” the statement said. “Last week it was a Palestine pressure group, the week before that it was another band. We
are not for the death of Jews, Arabs or any other race or group of
people. We are for the dismantling of a violent military machine. A
machine whose own soldiers were told to use ‘unnecessary lethal force’ against innocent civilians waiting for aid.
A machine that has destroyed much of Gaza. We, like those in the
spotlight before us, are not the story. We are a distraction from the
story. And whatever sanctions we receive will be a distraction.”
“The government doesn’t want us to ask why they remain silent in the
face of this atrocity? To ask why they aren’t doing more to stop the killing? To feed the starving? The more time they talk about Bob Vylan,
the less time they spend answering for their criminal inaction. We are
being targeted for speaking up. We are not the first. We will not be the last. And if you care for the sanctity of human life and freedom of
speech, we urge you to speak up too. Free Palestine.”
You regularly castigate people for making claims about the "majority"
of people yet you do it here yourself. FWIW, I suspect that only a
tiny minority of decent people in the UK would find Vylan's chant
acceptable in any way.
We are not for the death of Jews, Arabs or any other race or group of
people. We are for the dismantling of a violent military machine
The Todal quoted:
We are not for the death of Jews, Arabs or any other race or group of
people. We are for the dismantling of a violent military machine
Easy to say when you've had a few days to think about it, after the BBC
has said they should have pulled the plug, your record company has
dumped you and your visa has been cancelled ...
The Todal quoted:
We are not for the death of Jews, Arabs or any other race or group of
people. We are for the dismantling of a violent military machine
Easy to say when you've had a few days to think about it, after the BBC
has said they should have pulled the plug, your record company has
dumped you and your visa has been cancelled ...
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 11:26:42 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 01/07/2025 09:05, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 10:56:16 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 30/06/2025 08:27, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death >>>>>> to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause >>>>>> the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>>>>> can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >>>>>> decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
You regularly castigate people for making claims about the "majority" >>>>> of people yet you do it here yourself. FWIW, I suspect that only a
tiny minority of decent people in the UK would find Vylan's chant
acceptable in any way.
What does "acceptable" mean in this context?
The issue here is not my definition of "acceptable", it's your
definition of "decent people" which seems to mean people who agree
with you.
As is yours.
But you're wrong - the issue is the meaning of "acceptable". The fact
that some chanting at Glastonbury is unacceptable to Lisa Nandy and
other politicians does not make it unacceptable to the public at large.
I doubt that most decent people would find calling for death to people
to be acceptable anywhere or by anyone, be it Israelis calling for Palestinians to be killed, Palestinians calling for Israelis to be
killed, or some prick at a pop festival trying to win popularity.
We are being asked to protect the delicate sensibilities of the
murderous Israeli army.
You can ask for whatever you like but I - and I believe many people -
would call for human lives to be saved rather than destroyed in
pursuance of some ill-founded political objective which is what both
Hamas and Israel are engaged in.
Unacceptable if uttered by a politician or a newsreader or a Catholic
priest.
You clearly can't stop scratching that itch even though scratching
such itches generally just makes them worse.
You think any Catholic priest might one day speak out against genocide
in Gaza?
From Aljazeera, not exactly the most Catholioc friendly source in theworld:
"BEFORE HE DIED, POPE FRANCIS CALLED FOR PEACE IN GAZA. WILL ANYONE
LISTEN?
[...]
Concluding the pope’s thoughts on this particular “terrible conflict” was an “appeal to the warring parties: call a ceasefire, release the hostages and come to the aid of a starving people that aspires to a
future of peace!”
To be sure, Pope Francis opted to deploy language that does not
adequately reflect the horrors currently being unleashed upon Gaza.
For one thing, a genocide is not a “conflict”; nor are Israeli genocidaires and Palestinian victims of genocide equal “warring
parties”.
That said, the pope deserves praise for utilising what would be his
final platform to call for a ceasefire in Gaza – at a time when the
world appears all too content to allow the mass slaughter of
Palestinians to proceed indefinitely.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/4/21/before-he-died-pope-francis-called-for-peace-in-gaza-will-anyone-listen
That will be the day. But maybe you're right. Catholic priests
will just get worse and worse.
I'm telling you, man, the more you scratch that itch, the itchier it
will just get.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
On 01/07/2025 21:01, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>> can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
I think many people don't regard it as a celebration that the traitors
failed to blow up Parliament, rather a celebration that the traitors
were brave enough to have a go.
In Lewes there is an annual bonfire night celebration, very expensive
and elaborate and involving the entire town in marches and songs. I
regret to say that the Pope comes in for a great deal of criticism.
Maybe it should be banned by our elders and betters.
quote (a prayer, with everyone joining in from a hymnsheet)
Remember, remember the Fifth of November
The Gunpowder Treason and plot,
I see no reason why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes ’twas his intent
To blow up the King and the Parliament,
Three score barrels of powder below
Poor old England to overthrow.
By God’s providence he was catch’d
With a dark lantern and burning match,
Holler boys, holler boys, ring bells ring
Holler boys, holler boys, God Save the King!
A penny loaf to feed the Pope
A farthing o’cheese to choke him,
A pint of beer to rinse it down
A faggot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar
Burn him like a blazing star,
Burn his body from his head
Then we’ll say old Pope is dead.
On 01/07/2025 09:01 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>> can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
As the English people saw it, the apprehension of a terrorist.
We all know that.
On 01/07/2025 09:21 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 01/07/2025 21:01, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death >>>> to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause >>>> the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli
army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >>>> decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
I think many people don't regard it as a celebration that the traitors
failed to blow up Parliament, rather a celebration that the traitors
were brave enough to have a go.
That is a somewhat nebulous use of "many", as so often is the case. It
could mean 10%. It could mean 2%.
Has it ever been seriously in doubt that the celebration of November 5th
is of the detection and apprehension of a gang of terrorists (as the
English state and English people would have seen it)?
Are you seriously trying to suggest that a crowd at a punk rap concert
are representative of the general population of the UK?
Perhaps Bob Marley should have been banned from performing some of his
songs, such as "I Shot the Sheriff" and "Burning and Looting Tonight".
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Lots of people are upset at Bob Vylan's chants at Glastonbury, and
they're entitled to be, but did anyone pay attention to the LYRICS he
used? Some truly horrific stuff, revelling in the deaths of his enemies:
And I hope that you die
And your death will come soon
I'll follow your casket
By the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
Oh, no. Sorry, that's not Bob Vylan, that's Bob DYLAN....
On 02/07/2025 11:22, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>> can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Lots of people are upset at Bob Vylan's chants at Glastonbury, and
they're entitled to be, but did anyone pay attention to the LYRICS he
used? Some truly horrific stuff, revelling in the deaths of his enemies:
And I hope that you die
And your death will come soon
I'll follow your casket
By the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
Oh, no. Sorry, that's not Bob Vylan, that's Bob DYLAN....
:)
Meanwhile, Diane Abbott has made a major gaffe. This might result in her expulsion from the Labour Party.
She tweeted (why does anyone in their right mind still tweet?) "Jewish" instead of "Israel".
quote
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/diane-abbott-condemned-after-jewish- defence-forces-tweet/
She tweeted that “the Jewish Defence Force is gunning down Palestinians
as they queue for food”, along with the hashtag “#GazaGenocide”.
Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, which contains a substantial Jewish population, subsequently deleted the tweet.
unquote
I think it ought to be regarded as a forgiveable blunder, but it's still
a blunder. She should think before she tweets. Now, even though there is
a genocide taking place in Gaza, her terrible insult to the entire
Jewish population of the UK deserves her banishment.
On 01/07/2025 23:07, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2025 09:21 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 01/07/2025 21:01, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death >>>>> to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause >>>>> the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli
army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of
most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
I think many people don't regard it as a celebration that the traitors
failed to blow up Parliament, rather a celebration that the traitors
were brave enough to have a go.
That is a somewhat nebulous use of "many", as so often is the case. It
could mean 10%. It could mean 2%.
I can tell statistics are very important to you. I'm not sure they are important to anyone else.
Has it ever been seriously in doubt that the celebration of November
5th is of the detection and apprehension of a gang of terrorists (as
the English state and English people would have seen it)?
I am sure that was the original purpose of the celebration.
But try
asking school children what Guy Fawkes Night is about and they will
remember the exciting tale of bold Guy Fawkes nearly managing to blow up
the Houses of Parliament. At school there is little or no mention of the Catholic conspiracy and certainly no mention of how our glorious and wonderful King was spared, thanks be to God.
On 01/07/2025 23:01, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2025 09:01 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death >>>> to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause >>>> the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli
army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >>>> decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
As the English people saw it, the apprehension of a terrorist.
We all know that.
We may have forgotten that it was a much larger gang than just one man,
and that it was a Popish plot,
and that the perpetrators were tortured
and then put to death in gruesome ways.
We need a better reason to have a firework night. Even celebrating
America's independence would be a better reason. Or we could have a
firework night to celebrate the Supreme Court ruling that Boris's
proroguing of Parliament was unlawful.
I'm sure they'll be OK.
There was a KC blathering on the BBC yesterday giving his opinion (which
like all barristers opinions isn't worth a candle).
He immediately showed his ignorance by asking what the *Jewish* people in
the crowd thought of a chant about the IDF.
Now AFAIR, it's anti semitic in the extreme to compare the actions and
organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith. However, auntie Beeb seemed to forget that and allowed him to continue his (by now)
discredited "opinion".
As I noted in another post, I can recall people suggesting the Sex
Pistols should be hanged in 1977. Plus ca change and all that.
Op 02/07/2025 om 13:40 schreef The Todal:
On 02/07/2025 11:22, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death >>>> to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause >>>> the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli
army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >>>> decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Lots of people are upset at Bob Vylan's chants at Glastonbury, and
they're entitled to be, but did anyone pay attention to the LYRICS he
used? Some truly horrific stuff, revelling in the deaths of his enemies: >>>
And I hope that you die
And your death will come soon
I'll follow your casket
By the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
Oh, no. Sorry, that's not Bob Vylan, that's Bob DYLAN....
:)
Meanwhile, Diane Abbott has made a major gaffe. This might result in
her expulsion from the Labour Party.
She tweeted (why does anyone in their right mind still tweet?)
"Jewish" instead of "Israel".
quote
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/diane-abbott-condemned-after-jewish-
defence-forces-tweet/
She tweeted that “the Jewish Defence Force is gunning down
Palestinians as they queue for food”, along with the hashtag
“#GazaGenocide”.
Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, which contains
a substantial Jewish population, subsequently deleted the tweet.
unquote
I think it ought to be regarded as a forgiveable blunder, but it's
still a blunder. She should think before she tweets. Now, even though
there is a genocide taking place in Gaza, her terrible insult to the
entire Jewish population of the UK deserves her banishment.
Diane Abbott, like Jeremy Corbin, has been an MP for 50 years. Why is
she still around? Can't she just buy a camper van and travel the world?
She is entitled to a good pension after all.
Op 02/07/2025 om 13:40 schreef The Todal:
I think it ought to be regarded as a forgiveable blunder, but it's still
a blunder. She should think before she tweets. Now, even though there is
a genocide taking place in Gaza, her terrible insult to the entire
Jewish population of the UK deserves her banishment.
Diane Abbott, like Jeremy Corbin, has been an MP for 50 years. Why is
she still around? Can't she just buy a camper van and travel the world?
She is entitled to a good pension after all.
There was a KC blathering on the BBC yesterday giving his opinion (which
like all barristers opinions isn't worth a candle).
He immediately showed his ignorance by asking what the *Jewish* people in
the crowd thought of a chant about the IDF.
Now AFAIR, it's anti semitic in the extreme to compare the actions and
organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith. However, auntie Beeb seemed to forget that and allowed him to continue his (by now)
discredited "opinion".
On 02/07/2025 09:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 01/07/2025 23:01, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2025 09:01 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death >>>>> to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause >>>>> the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli
army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of
most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
As the English people saw it, the apprehension of a terrorist.
We all know that.
We may have forgotten that it was a much larger gang than just one man,
Were they all apprehended on the evening of 5th November? Were any,
other than Guido, arrested at the Palace of Westminster?
and that it was a Popish plot,
It was certainly not that.
and that the perpetrators were tortured
and then put to death in gruesome ways.
We need a better reason to have a firework night. Even celebrating
America's independence would be a better reason. Or we could have a
firework night to celebrate the Supreme Court ruling that Boris's
proroguing of Parliament was unlawful.
Why so desperate?
On 02/07/2025 09:44 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 01/07/2025 23:07, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2025 09:21 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 01/07/2025 21:01, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death,
death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot
cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli >>>>>> army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of >>>>>> most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
I think many people don't regard it as a celebration that the traitors >>>> failed to blow up Parliament, rather a celebration that the traitors
were brave enough to have a go.
That is a somewhat nebulous use of "many", as so often is the case. It
could mean 10%. It could mean 2%.
I can tell statistics are very important to you. I'm not sure they are
important to anyone else.
So when you say "many", with absolutely no qualification as to quantum
or proportion, that's a trump argument as you see it.
OK, I see.
Has it ever been seriously in doubt that the celebration of November
5th is of the detection and apprehension of a gang of terrorists (as
the English state and English people would have seen it)?
I am sure that was the original purpose of the celebration.
Thank goodness for that.
But try
asking school children what Guy Fawkes Night is about and they will
remember the exciting tale of bold Guy Fawkes nearly managing to blow up
the Houses of Parliament. At school there is little or no mention of the
Catholic conspiracy and certainly no mention of how our glorious and
wonderful King was spared, thanks be to God.
Of course there isn't. There isn't even a couyter-argument put forward
in Catholic schools (whose pupils are equally eager to get home, light
the bonfire and set of a few rockets and bangers).
But... so what?
Are you arguing that Bonfire Night should be banned?
There are, indeed, viable arguments in favour of that. But the
predictable cries of "Spoilsport" would prevail. We both know that.
On 02/07/2025 02:58 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
There was a KC blathering on the BBC yesterday giving his opinion
(which like all barristers opinions isn't worth a candle).
He immediately showed his ignorance by asking what the *Jewish* people
in the crowd thought of a chant about the IDF.
Now AFAIR, it's anti semitic in the extreme to compare the actions and
organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith. However, auntie
Beeb seemed to forget that and allowed him to continue his (by now)
discredited "opinion".
As I noted in another post, I can recall people suggesting the Sex
Pistols should be hanged in 1977. Plus ca change and all that.
Did anyone identify their capital crime?
For Abbott, it has now been thirty eight years (not fifty) and a few weeks.
Where did you come up with the "fifty" figure?
On 2025-07-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
There was a KC blathering on the BBC yesterday giving his opinion
(which like all barristers opinions isn't worth a candle).
He immediately showed his ignorance by asking what the *Jewish* people
in the crowd thought of a chant about the IDF.
Now AFAIR, it's anti semitic in the extreme to compare the actions and
organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith. However, auntie
Beeb seemed to forget that and allowed him to continue his (by now)
discredited "opinion".
How does asking how Jewish people felt about it "compare the actions and organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith"?
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 19:41:52 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk wrote:
I'm sure they'll be OK.
They will. It seems they're still welcome in Belgium. The article is unfortunately behind a paywall:
<https://www.hbvl.be/media-en-cultuur/ze-kwamen-in-opspraak-op-glastonbury-maar-bob-vylan-en-kneecap-nog-steeds-welkom-op-rock-herk-en-pukkelpop/74926096.html>
Ze kwamen in opspraak op Glastonbury, maar Bob Vylan en Kneecap nog
steeds welkom op Rock Herk en Pukkelpop
They were compromised on Glastonbury, but Bob Vylan and Kneecap are
still welcome at Rock Werchter and Pukkelpop.
They usually record at these festivals, but not live. But I'm sure they
will have their cameras ready when Kneecap and Bob Vylan are performing.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 16:04:37 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
There was a KC blathering on the BBC yesterday giving his opinion
(which like all barristers opinions isn't worth a candle).
He immediately showed his ignorance by asking what the *Jewish* people
in the crowd thought of a chant about the IDF.
Now AFAIR, it's anti semitic in the extreme to compare the actions and
organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith. However, auntie
Beeb seemed to forget that and allowed him to continue his (by now)
discredited "opinion".
How does asking how Jewish people felt about it "compare the actions and
organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith"?
Because it assumes that Jewish people would take criticism of the IDF as criticism of Jews.
On 6/29/25 20:50, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli
army, can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of
most decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
If my brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents were brutally murdered,
raped, mutilated and/or kidnapped by Hamas terrorists, I'd want the army
that is supposed to defend them to relentlessly hunt and destroy the perpetrators.
Good job IDF, keep it up.
Bob Villain is getting what he deserves, serves him right.
On 2025-07-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 16:04:37 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
There was a KC blathering on the BBC yesterday giving his opinion
(which like all barristers opinions isn't worth a candle).
He immediately showed his ignorance by asking what the *Jewish*
people in the crowd thought of a chant about the IDF.
Now AFAIR, it's anti semitic in the extreme to compare the actions
and organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith. However,
auntie Beeb seemed to forget that and allowed him to continue his (by
now) discredited "opinion".
How does asking how Jewish people felt about it "compare the actions
and organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith"?
Because it assumes that Jewish people would take criticism of the IDF
as criticism of Jews.
You've got that backwards though. It would be anti-semitic to blame Jews
for the actions of Israel. It is not anti-semitic for Jews to be aware
that people criticising Israel may wrongly blame them.
On 6/29/25 20:50, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
If my brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents were brutally murdered,
raped, mutilated and/or kidnapped by Hamas terrorists, I'd want the army
that is supposed to defend them to relentlessly hunt and destroy the perpetrators.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 23:08:57 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 16:04:37 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
There was a KC blathering on the BBC yesterday giving his opinion
(which like all barristers opinions isn't worth a candle).
He immediately showed his ignorance by asking what the *Jewish*
people in the crowd thought of a chant about the IDF.
Now AFAIR, it's anti semitic in the extreme to compare the actions
and organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith. However,
auntie Beeb seemed to forget that and allowed him to continue his (by >>>>> now) discredited "opinion".
How does asking how Jewish people felt about it "compare the actions
and organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith"?
Because it assumes that Jewish people would take criticism of the IDF
as criticism of Jews.
You've got that backwards though. It would be anti-semitic to blame Jews
for the actions of Israel. It is not anti-semitic for Jews to be aware
that people criticising Israel may wrongly blame them.
Of course not.
But it *is* anti semitic to assume : that Jews feel
"that people criticising Israel may wrongly blame them."
A similar analogy might be in a discussion of Islam in the workplace
sending out an invite to all the "Patel" and "Singh" employees. Although
the weird and false relationship between the semitic and the Judaic is admittedly unique.
So, returning to the point, beginning an interview with that assumption invalidates the succeeding discussion.
I mean this is the BBC, so there wasn't really any potential for a
grown up debate anyway.
But it *is* anti semitic to assume : that Jews feel
"that people criticising Israel may wrongly blame them."
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:1045cen$3f7h0$14@dont-email.me...
But it *is* anti semitic to assume : that Jews feel
"that people criticising Israel may wrongly blame them."
No it isn't.
It would only be anti-semitic, if it was an assumption which
could only ever be levelled against Jews.
Whereas
Moslems feel that people criticising Hamas, may wrongly
blame them
Irish people feel that people criticising the IRA, may wrongly
blame them,
Italians feel that people criticising the Mafia, may wrongly
blame them
etc, etc.
On 03/07/2025 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The BBC’s director general, Tim Davie, has offered to meet Jewish staff
to discuss their concerns after telling them he was appalled by “deeply offensive” comments made during Bob Vylan’s performance. In an email to the BBC’s Jewish staff network, he said he appreciated “how deeply upset and concerned you must feel about the actions of Bob Vylan on Saturday”.
On Thu, 03 Jul 2025 11:02:23 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 03/07/2025 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The BBC's director general, Tim Davie, has offered to meet Jewish staff
to discuss their concerns after telling them he was appalled by "deeply
offensive" comments made during Bob Vylan's performance. In an email to
the BBC's Jewish staff network, he said he appreciated "how deeply upset
and concerned you must feel about the actions of Bob Vylan on Saturday".
So he is saying that the IDF must equate to Jewish then.
Just for the hard of thinking, the Vylan set was aimed at the IDF. No
mention of Jewishness whatsoever. It's the critics that are doing that.
Imagine the uproar if someone had done a set attacking the SS and the BBC felt compelled to apologise to any Germans listening ?
On 2025-07-03, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2025 11:02:23 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 03/07/2025 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The BBC’s director general, Tim Davie, has offered to meet Jewish
staff to discuss their concerns after telling them he was appalled by
“deeply offensive” comments made during Bob Vylan’s performance. In an
email to the BBC’s Jewish staff network, he said he appreciated “how >>> deeply upset and concerned you must feel about the actions of Bob
Vylan on Saturday”.
So he is saying that the IDF must equate to Jewish then.
Just for the hard of thinking, the Vylan set was aimed at the IDF. No
mention of Jewishness whatsoever. It's the critics that are doing that.
Imagine the uproar if someone had done a set attacking the SS and the
BBC felt compelled to apologise to any Germans listening ?
Oh dear, there you were all concerned about anti-semitism and now you've
gone and compared the IDF and the SS, and you've equated being Israeli
and being Jewish.
On 02/07/2025 15:07, JNugent wrote:
On 02/07/2025 09:44 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 01/07/2025 23:07, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2025 09:21 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 01/07/2025 21:01, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, >>>>>>> deathCan I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot >>>>>>> cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli >>>>>>> army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of >>>>>>> most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza. >>>>>>
I think many people don't regard it as a celebration that the traitors >>>>> failed to blow up Parliament, rather a celebration that the traitors >>>>> were brave enough to have a go.
That is a somewhat nebulous use of "many", as so often is the case. It >>>> could mean 10%. It could mean 2%.
I can tell statistics are very important to you. I'm not sure they are
important to anyone else.
So when you say "many", with absolutely no qualification as to quantum
or proportion, that's a trump argument as you see it.
OK, I see.
No you don't. It's not a trump argument at all. If I say many people
prefer oat milk to dairy milk that doesn't somehow prove that oat milk
is now the preference of most people or that it is better for you.
Do you see now? Should I explain it again?
Has it ever been seriously in doubt that the celebration of November
5th is of the detection and apprehension of a gang of terrorists (as
the English state and English people would have seen it)?
I am sure that was the original purpose of the celebration.
Thank goodness for that.
But try
asking school children what Guy Fawkes Night is about and they will
remember the exciting tale of bold Guy Fawkes nearly managing to blow up >>> the Houses of Parliament. At school there is little or no mention of the >>> Catholic conspiracy and certainly no mention of how our glorious and
wonderful King was spared, thanks be to God.
Of course there isn't. There isn't even a couyter-argument put forward
in Catholic schools (whose pupils are equally eager to get home, light
the bonfire and set of a few rockets and bangers).
But... so what?
A celebration that was intended to remind everyone that Catholicism had
been firmly suppressed and that we should rejoice that the King's life
had been saved, is now an excuse to watch fireworks with the vague
memory that Guy Fawkes was prevented from blowing up the Houses of Parliament.
Doesn't history matter to you? Don't you think that people should know
what and why they are celebrating?
If we no longer want to celebrate the
destruction of Catholicism or the continuing life of the King, maybe
it's time to find something else to celebrate.
Have you even read the Observance of 5th November Act 1605? It has
nothing whatsoever to do with celebrating our Parliamentary democracy,
our ministers and our elected representatives. Nothing about treacle
toffee, rockets or sparklers or roman candles.
Go on, have a read of it. Oh, I almost forgot - you don't like to follow hyperlinks.
quote
FORASMUCH as Almighty God hath in all ages shewed his power and mercy in
the miraculous and gracious deliverance of his church, and in the
protection of religious Kings and states; (2) and that no nation of the
earth hath been blessed with greater benefits than this kingdom now
enjoyeth, having the true and free profession of the gospel under our
most gracious sovereign lord King James, the most great, learned and religious King that ever reigned therein, enriched with a most hopeful
and plentiful progeny, proceeding out of his royal loins, promising continuance of this happiness and profession to all posterity: (3) the
which many malignant and devilish papists, jesuits and seminary priests,
much envying and fearing, conspired horribly, when the Kings most
excellent majesty, the Queen, the prince, and all the lords spiritual
and temporal, and commons, should have been assembled in the upper house
of parliament upon the fifth day of November in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and five, suddenly to have blown up the said whole
house with gun-powder: (4) an invention so inhumane, barbarous and
cruel, as the like was never before heard of and was (as same of the principal conspirators thereof confess) purposely devised and concluded
to be done in the said house, that where sundry necessary and religious
laws for preservation of the church and state were made, which they
falsely and slanderously term cruel laws, enacted against them and their religion, both place and persons should be all destroyed and blown up at once; (5) which would have turned to the utter ruin of this whole
kingdom, had it not pleased Almighty God, by inspiring the King’s most excellent majesty with a divine spirit, to interpret some dark phrases
of a letter shewed to his Majesty, above and beyond all ordinary construction, thereby miraculously discovering this hidden treason....
Be it therefore enacted by the King’s most excellent majesty, the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That all and singular
ministers in every cathedral and parish church, or other usual place for common prayer, within this realm of England and the dominions of the
same, shall always upon the fifth day of November say morning prayer,
and give unto Almighty God thanks for this most happy deliverance: (2)
and that all and every person and persons inhabiting within this realm
of England and the dominions of the same, shall always upon that day diligently and faithfully resort to the parish church or chapel
accustomed, or to some usual church or chapel where the said morning
prayer, preaching, or other service of God shall be used, and then and
there to abide orderly and soberly during the time of the said prayers, preaching, or other service of God there to be used and ministred.
Are you arguing that Bonfire Night should be banned?
Where on earth would you get that impression from anything that I have
said? Are you having a simultaneous conversation with someone else who
wants to ban Bonfire Night?
There are, indeed, viable arguments in favour of that. But the
predictable cries of "Spoilsport" would prevail. We both know that.
On 02/07/2025 15:10, JNugent wrote:
On 02/07/2025 09:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 01/07/2025 23:01, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2025 09:01 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death,
death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot
cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli >>>>>> army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of >>>>>> most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
As the English people saw it, the apprehension of a terrorist.
We all know that.
We may have forgotten that it was a much larger gang than just one man,
Were they all apprehended on the evening of 5th November? Were any,
other than Guido, arrested at the Palace of Westminster?
Do you need help with this? Oh - are you under the mistaken impression
that Guy Fawkes Night or Bonfire Night is only concerned with the apprehension and trial of Guy Fawkes, as if he was a lone assassin whose motives need not concern us?
If so, you'd be wrong.
and that it was a Popish plot,
It was certainly not that.
It certainly was. What history book has led you astray?
and that the perpetrators were tortured
and then put to death in gruesome ways.
We need a better reason to have a firework night. Even celebrating
America's independence would be a better reason. Or we could have a
firework night to celebrate the Supreme Court ruling that Boris's
proroguing of Parliament was unlawful.
Why so desperate?
Desperate? Are you desperate to preserve the tradition of Guy Fawkes
Night? If so, do explain why.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 17:00:01 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 02/07/2025 02:58 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
There was a KC blathering on the BBC yesterday giving his opinion
(which like all barristers opinions isn't worth a candle).
He immediately showed his ignorance by asking what the *Jewish* people
in the crowd thought of a chant about the IDF.
Now AFAIR, it's anti semitic in the extreme to compare the actions and
organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith. However, auntie
Beeb seemed to forget that and allowed him to continue his (by now)
discredited "opinion".
As I noted in another post, I can recall people suggesting the Sex
Pistols should be hanged in 1977. Plus ca change and all that.
Did anyone identify their capital crime?
Treason was mentioned most AIR.
https://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-lydon-death-penalty-sex-pistols-songs
John Lydon rejected the idea that “there was much glory” in fronting Sex Pistols, recalling that he faced the risk of the death penalty over some
of the lyrics he’d written.
At the time of the punk icons’ rise to fame, capital punishment remained
on the statute books for the crime of high treason even though it had
been abolished for all other crimes. While it’s unlikely Lydon and his bandmates would have been charged with that offense, media speculation
called for them to be accused of treason for the lyrics to “God Save the Queen” in 1977.
“I don’t know that there was much glory. It was mostly hell on earth,” Lydon told the Metro of the period of his life. “There was constant pressure, but I got to write the songs I wanted to write, got those
lyrics out to Joe Public, and Joe Public was very nice and appreciated
it. ... But then I had a media and a police force who did not appreciate
it. I was discussed in the Houses of Parliament under the Treason Act.
And you go, ‘Ooh, ha ha’ … but that carried a death penalty! For words! A
few soppy little pop songs like ‘Anarchy in the U.K.’ and you can be dead. Off with his head!”.
Op 02/07/2025 om 16:59 schreef JNugent:
For Abbott, it has now been thirty eight years (not fifty) and a few
weeks.
Where did you come up with the "fifty" figure?
Still. 38 years paid for by you guys.
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 16:04:37 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
There was a KC blathering on the BBC yesterday giving his opinion
(which like all barristers opinions isn't worth a candle).
He immediately showed his ignorance by asking what the *Jewish* people
in the crowd thought of a chant about the IDF.
Now AFAIR, it's anti semitic in the extreme to compare the actions and
organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith. However, auntie
Beeb seemed to forget that and allowed him to continue his (by now)
discredited "opinion".
How does asking how Jewish people felt about it "compare the actions and
organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith"?
Because it assumes that Jewish people would take criticism of the IDF as criticism of Jews.
On Thu, 03 Jul 2025 11:02:23 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 03/07/2025 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The BBC’s director general, Tim Davie, has offered to meet Jewish staff
to discuss their concerns after telling them he was appalled by “deeply
offensive” comments made during Bob Vylan’s performance. In an email to >> the BBC’s Jewish staff network, he said he appreciated “how deeply upset >> and concerned you must feel about the actions of Bob Vylan on Saturday”.
So he is saying that the IDF must equate to Jewish then.
Just for the hard of thinking, the Vylan set was aimed at the IDF. No
mention of Jewishness whatsoever. It's the critics that are doing that.
Imagine the uproar if someone had done a set attacking the SS and the BBC felt compelled to apologise to any Germans listening ?
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:1045p6o$3f7h0$18@dont-email.me...
On Thu, 03 Jul 2025 11:02:23 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 03/07/2025 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The BBC's director general, Tim Davie, has offered to meet Jewish staff
to discuss their concerns after telling them he was appalled by "deeply
offensive" comments made during Bob Vylan's performance. In an email to
the BBC's Jewish staff network, he said he appreciated "how deeply upset >>> and concerned you must feel about the actions of Bob Vylan on Saturday".
So he is saying that the IDF must equate to Jewish then.
Just for the hard of thinking, the Vylan set was aimed at the IDF. No
mention of Jewishness whatsoever. It's the critics that are doing that.
Indeed. But the fact remains that IDF members are overwhelmingly,
if not exclusively, Jewish.
So that Mr Wylan was indeed exhorting his fans to kill a group of people,
who just so happened to be exclusively Jewish
What he was *not* doing of course, was exhorting his fans to kill all Jews regardless of whether they happened to be in the IDF.
That missing "Second Chorus" perhaps ?
Imagine the uproar if someone had done a set attacking the SS and the BBC
felt compelled to apologise to any Germans listening ?
Not forgetting the late Duke of Edinburgh of course;* whose two sisters were both
married to high ranking SS Officers,.
Although the Beeb would probably have left out that bit.
bb
* The father of our present King. His Glorious Majesty King Charles 111.
So these would have been his uncles.
**
In one of the Secret Barrister Books he covers forms of address
in the Courts. So its My Lord, Your honour, Sir, your Majesty,
and Your Holiness. He then explains that while the last two are
supposedly for Sovereigns and Popes, this doesn't deter
some defendants. Even in Magistrates Courts
On 02/07/2025 07:44 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 02/07/2025 15:10, JNugent wrote:
On 02/07/2025 09:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 01/07/2025 23:01, JNugent wrote:Were they all apprehended on the evening of 5th November? Were any,
On 01/07/2025 09:01 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, >>>>>>> deathCan I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot >>>>>>> cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli >>>>>>> army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of >>>>>>> most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza. >>>>>>
As the English people saw it, the apprehension of a terrorist.
We all know that.
We may have forgotten that it was a much larger gang than just one man, >>>
other than Guido, arrested at the Palace of Westminster?
Do you need help with this? Oh - are you under the mistaken impression
that Guy Fawkes Night or Bonfire Night is only concerned with the
apprehension and trial of Guy Fawkes, as if he was a lone assassin whose
motives need not concern us?
That, surely, is the way that most people have an understanding of the
facts of that particular night. Yes, it was a plot (conspiracy) and necessarily involved others. But only one was arrested at the scene.
If so, you'd be wrong.
and that it was a Popish plot,
It was certainly not that.
It certainly was. What history book has led you astray?
Please cite the book that claims that the Pope was involved.
and that the perpetrators were tortured
and then put to death in gruesome ways.
We need a better reason to have a firework night. Even celebrating
America's independence would be a better reason. Or we could have a
firework night to celebrate the Supreme Court ruling that Boris's
proroguing of Parliament was unlawful.
Why so desperate?
Desperate? Are you desperate to preserve the tradition of Guy Fawkes
Night? If so, do explain why.
I am not the slightest bit desperate to keep it and have never had
anything to do with it as an adolescent or adult (other than taking my youngest son to a council-run firework display one year). But I am well
aware that it is a well-anticated night of enjoyment for most children.
I can't imagine the response if Parliament tried to abolish or prohibit it.
On 02/07/2025 09:14 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 16:04:37 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
There was a KC blathering on the BBC yesterday giving his opinion
(which like all barristers opinions isn't worth a candle).
He immediately showed his ignorance by asking what the *Jewish* people >>>> in the crowd thought of a chant about the IDF.
Now AFAIR, it's anti semitic in the extreme to compare the actions and >>>> organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith. However, auntie
Beeb seemed to forget that and allowed him to continue his (by now)
discredited "opinion".
How does asking how Jewish people felt about it "compare the actions and >>> organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith"?
Because it assumes that Jewish people would take criticism of the IDF as
criticism of Jews.
Would that be an unrealistic perception?
What about the murders of two Jewish people i the USA a couple of weeks
ago?
On 02/07/2025 09:11 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 17:00:01 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 02/07/2025 02:58 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
There was a KC blathering on the BBC yesterday giving his opinion
(which like all barristers opinions isn't worth a candle).
He immediately showed his ignorance by asking what the *Jewish* people >>>> in the crowd thought of a chant about the IDF.
Now AFAIR, it's anti semitic in the extreme to compare the actions and >>>> organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith. However, auntie
Beeb seemed to forget that and allowed him to continue his (by now)
discredited "opinion".
As I noted in another post, I can recall people suggesting the Sex
Pistols should be hanged in 1977. Plus ca change and all that.
Did anyone identify their capital crime?
Treason was mentioned most AIR.
Was it formally alleged and tried?
https://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-lydon-death-penalty-sex-pistols-songs >>
John Lydon rejected the idea that “there was much glory” in fronting Sex >> Pistols, recalling that he faced the risk of the death penalty over some
of the lyrics he’d written.
A bit of hypermobile there, as I'm sure you agree. Even that James
Hewitt bloke was never at anything other then the most fanciful of risks
of that.
At the time of the punk icons’ rise to fame, capital punishment remained >> on the statute books for the crime of high treason even though it had
been abolished for all other crimes. While it’s unlikely Lydon and his
bandmates would have been charged with that offense, media speculation
called for them to be accused of treason for the lyrics to “God Save the >> Queen” in 1977.
So.. what? :-)
“I don’t know that there was much glory. It was mostly hell on earth,” >> Lydon told the Metro of the period of his life. “There was constant
pressure, but I got to write the songs I wanted to write, got those
lyrics out to Joe Public, and Joe Public was very nice and appreciated
it. ... But then I had a media and a police force who did not appreciate
it. I was discussed in the Houses of Parliament under the Treason Act.
And you go, ‘Ooh, ha ha’ … but that carried a death penalty! For words! A
few soppy little pop songs like ‘Anarchy in the U.K.’ and you can be
dead. Off with his head!”.
Yeah, right, John.
On 03/07/2025 14:31, JNugent wrote:
On 02/07/2025 09:14 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 16:04:37 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
There was a KC blathering on the BBC yesterday giving his opinion
(which like all barristers opinions isn't worth a candle).
He immediately showed his ignorance by asking what the *Jewish* people >>>>> in the crowd thought of a chant about the IDF.
Now AFAIR, it's anti semitic in the extreme to compare the actions and >>>>> organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith. However, auntie >>>>> Beeb seemed to forget that and allowed him to continue his (by now)
discredited "opinion".
How does asking how Jewish people felt about it "compare the actions
and
organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith"?
Because it assumes that Jewish people would take criticism of the IDF as >>> criticism of Jews.
Would that be an unrealistic perception?
Of course it would. If we condemn the USA for its actions in Vietnam or
in Iraq, we aren't directing our wrath at individual Americans many of
whom will have joined us in our demonstration.
What about the murders of two Jewish people i the USA a couple of
weeks ago?
What about them?
Or maybe you could agree with Donald Trump that the addled teenager who
shot at him and wounded his ear was motivated and inspired by the wicked Democratic Party.
On 03/07/2025 14:27, JNugent wrote:
On 02/07/2025 07:44 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 02/07/2025 15:10, JNugent wrote:
On 02/07/2025 09:49 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 01/07/2025 23:01, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2025 09:01 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, >>>>>>>> deathCan I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot >>>>>>>> cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli >>>>>>>> army,
can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of >>>>>>>> most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza. >>>>>>>
As the English people saw it, the apprehension of a terrorist.
We all know that.
We may have forgotten that it was a much larger gang than just one
man,
Were they all apprehended on the evening of 5th November? Were any,
other than Guido, arrested at the Palace of Westminster?
Do you need help with this? Oh - are you under the mistaken impression
that Guy Fawkes Night or Bonfire Night is only concerned with the
apprehension and trial of Guy Fawkes, as if he was a lone assassin whose >>> motives need not concern us?
That, surely, is the way that most people have an understanding of the
facts of that particular night. Yes, it was a plot (conspiracy) and
necessarily involved others. But only one was arrested at the scene.
If so, you'd be wrong.
and that it was a Popish plot,
It was certainly not that.
It certainly was. What history book has led you astray?
Please cite the book that claims that the Pope was involved.
Popish or papist is the language used at the time to signify a Roman
Catholic plot or enterprise.
I haven't seen any evidence that the Pope himself had any involvement.
In fact according to the Wikipedia article Catesby (the mastermind
behind the plot) was shown a letter from the Pope which forbade
rebellion. Catesby replied, "Whatever I mean to do, if the Pope knew, he would not hinder for the general good of our country".
and that the perpetrators were tortured
and then put to death in gruesome ways.
We need a better reason to have a firework night. Even celebrating
America's independence would be a better reason. Or we could have a
firework night to celebrate the Supreme Court ruling that Boris's
proroguing of Parliament was unlawful.
Why so desperate?
Desperate? Are you desperate to preserve the tradition of Guy Fawkes
Night? If so, do explain why.
I am not the slightest bit desperate to keep it and have never had
anything to do with it as an adolescent or adult (other than taking my
youngest son to a council-run firework display one year). But I am
well aware that it is a well-anticated night of enjoyment for most
children. I can't imagine the response if Parliament tried to abolish
or prohibit it.
I can't see why it should be abolished or prohibited but I have
suggested maybe the nation could devise a better excuse for a firework
and bonfire party, some other good reason to celebrate some event. Maybe
when we eventually re-join the EU?
On 03/07/2025 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:1045cen$3f7h0$14@dont-email.me...
But it *is* anti semitic to assume : that Jews feel
"that people criticising Israel may wrongly blame them."
No it isn't.
It would only be anti-semitic, if it was an assumption which
could only ever be levelled against Jews.
Whereas
Moslems feel that people criticising Hamas, may wrongly
blame them
Irish people feel that people criticising the IRA, may wrongly
blame them,
Italians feel that people criticising the Mafia, may wrongly
blame them
etc, etc.
The BBC’s director general, Tim Davie, has offered to meet Jewish staff
to discuss their concerns after telling them he was appalled by “deeply offensive” comments made during Bob Vylan’s performance. In an email to the BBC’s Jewish staff network, he said he appreciated “how deeply upset and concerned you must feel about the actions of Bob Vylan on Saturday”.
On 03/07/2025 11:02, The Todal wrote:
On 03/07/2025 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:1045cen$3f7h0$14@dont-email.me...
But it *is* anti semitic to assume : that Jews feel
"that people criticising Israel may wrongly blame them."
No it isn't.
It would only be anti-semitic, if it was an assumption which
could only ever be levelled against Jews.
Whereas
Moslems feel that people criticising Hamas, may wrongly
blame them
Irish people feel that people criticising the IRA, may wrongly
blame them,
Italians feel that people criticising the Mafia, may wrongly
blame them
etc, etc.
The BBC's director general, Tim Davie, has offered to meet Jewish staff to discuss
their concerns after telling them he was appalled by "deeply offensive" comments made
during Bob Vylan's performance. In an email to the BBC's Jewish staff network, he said
he appreciated "how deeply upset and concerned you must feel about the actions of Bob
Vylan on Saturday".
How would he identify the Jewish staff? Do they wear special clothing or badges?
Perhaps he could ask them how they feel about the Israeli genocide, sorry, mass murder,
in Gaza. (Which is worse?)
“Many colleagues will know that in Israel, there is a conscription
model. Every young person is required to serve in the IDF, which means
that chanting ‘death to the IDF’ is equivalent to calling for the death of every single Israeli Jew.
On 01/07/2025 09:01 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>> can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
As the English people saw it, the apprehension of a terrorist.
We all know that.
On 01/07/2025 20:41, The Todal wrote:
<snip>
“Many colleagues will know that in Israel, there is a conscription
model. Every young person is required to serve in the IDF, which means
that chanting ‘death to the IDF’ is equivalent to calling for the death >> of every single Israeli Jew.
Not strictly true. Many are exempt and you won't find any non-jews in
the IDF.
On 01/07/2025 23:01, JNugent wrote:
On 01/07/2025 09:01 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death >>>> to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause >>>> the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>>> can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >>>> decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
As the English people saw it, the apprehension of a terrorist.
We all know that.
We may have forgotten that it was a much larger gang than just one man,
and that it was a Popish plot, and that the perpetrators were tortured
and then put to death in gruesome ways.
We need a better reason to have a firework night. Even celebrating
America's independence would be a better reason. Or we could have a
firework night to celebrate the Supreme Court ruling that Boris's
proroguing of Parliament was unlawful.
On 02/07/2025 11:22, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death
to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause
the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>> can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most
decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Lots of people are upset at Bob Vylan's chants at Glastonbury, and
they're entitled to be, but did anyone pay attention to the LYRICS he
used? Some truly horrific stuff, revelling in the deaths of his enemies:
And I hope that you die
And your death will come soon
I'll follow your casket
By the pale afternoon
And I'll watch while you're lowered
Down to your deathbed
And I'll stand over your grave
'Til I'm sure that you're dead
Oh, no. Sorry, that's not Bob Vylan, that's Bob DYLAN....
:)
Meanwhile, Diane Abbott has made a major gaffe. This might result in her expulsion from the Labour Party.
She tweeted (why does anyone in their right mind still tweet?) "Jewish" instead of "Israel".
quote
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/diane-abbott-condemned-after-jewish-defence-forces-tweet/
She tweeted that “the Jewish Defence Force is gunning down Palestinians
as they queue for food”, along with the hashtag “#GazaGenocide”.
Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, which contains a substantial Jewish population, subsequently deleted the tweet.
unquote
I think it ought to be regarded as a forgiveable blunder, but it's still
a blunder. She should think before she tweets. Now, even though there is
a genocide taking place in Gaza, her terrible insult to the entire
Jewish population of the UK deserves her banishment.
On 7/3/25 16:14, The Todal wrote:
On 03/07/2025 06:11, J Newman wrote:
On 6/29/25 20:50, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death,
death to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot
cause the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the
Israeli army, can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of
most decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza. >>>>
If my brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents were brutally murdered,
raped, mutilated and/or kidnapped by Hamas terrorists, I'd want the
army that is supposed to defend them to relentlessly hunt and destroy
the perpetrators.
Good job IDF, keep it up.
Bob Villain is getting what he deserves, serves him right.
Here's where you have a logic fail. You say "the perpetrators" and I
agree with you that the perpetrators of 7th October should be hunted
down and captured or killed.
But the Israelis have chosen to conflate "the perpetrators" with all
Palestinians in Gaza, men women and children. And doctors. All must be
slaughtered. Do you agree with that policy?
This is a total war scenario where it radical Islamists are fighting civilisation with no holds barred.
A lot of innocent "paramedics" are terrorists, "journalists" moonlight
as snipers and a lot of kids are terrorists themselves.
Western sensibilities see dead kids, paramedics and journalists but the backstory that they are terrorists too has been downplayed.
I'm not discounting there have been innocent civilians (on both sides)
that have been killed, but war is a blunt instrument; moreso when Hamas
hides behind human shields.
The war ensuing from Oct 7 is solely because of Hamas. There was peace
on Oct 6.
On 2025-07-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
There was a KC blathering on the BBC yesterday giving his opinion (which
like all barristers opinions isn't worth a candle).
He immediately showed his ignorance by asking what the *Jewish* people in
the crowd thought of a chant about the IDF.
Now AFAIR, it's anti semitic in the extreme to compare the actions and
organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith. However, auntie Beeb
seemed to forget that and allowed him to continue his (by now)
discredited "opinion".
How does asking how Jewish people felt about it "compare the actions
and organs of the state of Israel with the Jewish faith"?
On 7/3/25 16:14, The Todal wrote:
On 03/07/2025 06:11, J Newman wrote:
On 6/29/25 20:50, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death,
death to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot
cause the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the
Israeli army, can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of
most decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza. >>>>
If my brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents were brutally
murdered, raped, mutilated and/or kidnapped by Hamas terrorists, I'd
want the army that is supposed to defend them to relentlessly hunt
and destroy the perpetrators.
Good job IDF, keep it up.
Bob Villain is getting what he deserves, serves him right.
Here's where you have a logic fail. You say "the perpetrators" and I
agree with you that the perpetrators of 7th October should be hunted
down and captured or killed.
But the Israelis have chosen to conflate "the perpetrators" with all
Palestinians in Gaza, men women and children. And doctors. All must
be slaughtered. Do you agree with that policy?
This is a total war scenario where it radical Islamists are fighting civilisation with no holds barred.
A lot of innocent "paramedics" are terrorists, "journalists" moonlight
as snipers and a lot of kids are terrorists themselves.
Western sensibilities see dead kids, paramedics and journalists but the backstory that they are terrorists too has been downplayed.
I'm not discounting there have been innocent civilians (on both sides)
that have been killed, but war is a blunt instrument; moreso when Hamas
hides behind human shields.
The war ensuing from Oct 7 is solely because of Hamas. There was peace
on Oct 6.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:1046f9d$9dn1$1@dont-email.me...
On 03/07/2025 11:02, The Todal wrote:
On 03/07/2025 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:1045cen$3f7h0$14@dont-email.me...
But it *is* anti semitic to assume : that Jews feel
"that people criticising Israel may wrongly blame them."
No it isn't.
It would only be anti-semitic, if it was an assumption which
could only ever be levelled against Jews.
Whereas
Moslems feel that people criticising Hamas, may wrongly
blame them
Irish people feel that people criticising the IRA, may wrongly
blame them,
Italians feel that people criticising the Mafia, may wrongly
blame them
etc, etc.
The BBC's director general, Tim Davie, has offered to meet Jewish staff to discuss
their concerns after telling them he was appalled by "deeply offensive" comments made
during Bob Vylan's performance. In an email to the BBC's Jewish staff network, he said
he appreciated "how deeply upset and concerned you must feel about the actions of Bob
Vylan on Saturday".
How would he identify the Jewish staff? Do they wear special clothing or badges?
Why would he need to ?
He simply addressed his remarks to any BBC employees who chose to identify
as Jewish; whether there were only 2 of them, or 2,000
Perhaps he could ask them how they feel about the Israeli genocide, sorry, mass murder,
in Gaza. (Which is worse?)
What would he want to ?
As the head of a large organisation he was trying to be placatory towards members
of his own staff, not confrontational.
The latter would be equivalent to trying initiate a useful conversation with somebody,
by immediately asking them why they insist on asking such stupid questions.
Unpaywalled here:
https://archive.is/9TQ4K
Yes, I do watch VRT sometimes.
And one could say that, despite the Flemish's excellent language skills,
some incendiary language might not have the same incendiary meaning abroad.
A lot of innocent "paramedics" are terrorists, "journalists" moonlight
as snipers and a lot of kids are terrorists themselves.
Western sensibilities see dead kids, paramedics and journalists but the backstory that they are terrorists too has been downplayed.
I'm not discounting there have been innocent civilians (on both sides)
that have been killed, but war is a blunt instrument; moreso when Hamas
hides behind human shields.
The war ensuing from Oct 7 is solely because of Hamas. There was peace
on Oct 6.
On 1 Jul 2025 at 23:01:18 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/07/2025 09:01 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death >>>> to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause >>>> the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>>> can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >>>> decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
As the English people saw it, the apprehension of a terrorist.
We all know that.
Only if 'terrorist' is a meaningless insult to anyone we don't like; it was an
attempted coup aiming at the king and his ministers. It was simply not an attempt at a reign of terror against the populace; that would have come *after* the coup!
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/diane-abbott-condemned-after-jewish- defence-forces-tweet/
She tweeted that “the Jewish Defence Force is gunning down Palestinians
as they queue for food”, along with the hashtag “#GazaGenocide”.
Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, which contains a substantial Jewish population, subsequently deleted the tweet.
unquote
I think it ought to be regarded as a forgiveable blunder, but it's still
a blunder. She should think before she tweets. Now, even though there is
a genocide taking place in Gaza, her terrible insult to the entire
Jewish population of the UK deserves her banishment.
On 03/07/2025 19:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1046f9d$9dn1$1@dont-email.me...
On 03/07/2025 11:02, The Todal wrote:
On 03/07/2025 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:1045cen$3f7h0$14@dont-email.me...
But it *is* anti semitic to assume : that Jews feel
"that people criticising Israel may wrongly blame them."
No it isn't.
It would only be anti-semitic, if it was an assumption which
could only ever be levelled against Jews.
Whereas
Moslems feel that people criticising Hamas, may wrongly
blame them
Irish people feel that people criticising the IRA, may wrongly
blame them,
Italians feel that people criticising the Mafia, may wrongly
blame them
etc, etc.
The BBC's director general, Tim Davie, has offered to meet Jewish staff to discuss
their concerns after telling them he was appalled by "deeply offensive" comments
made
during Bob Vylan's performance. In an email to the BBC's Jewish staff network, he
said
he appreciated "how deeply upset and concerned you must feel about the actions of
Bob
Vylan on Saturday".
How would he identify the Jewish staff? Do they wear special clothing or badges?
Why would he need to ?
He simply addressed his remarks to any BBC employees who chose to identify >> as Jewish; whether there were only 2 of them, or 2,000
"has offered to meet Jewish staff" So he has to identify such.
Perhaps he could ask them how they feel about the Israeli genocide, sorry, mass
murder,
in Gaza. (Which is worse?)
What would he want to ?
As the head of a large organisation he was trying to be placatory towards members
of his own staff, not confrontational.
The latter would be equivalent to trying initiate a useful conversation with somebody,
by immediately asking them why they insist on asking such stupid questions.
He could divide them into "good Jews" and "bad Jews".
On 04/07/2025 10:14 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Jul 2025 at 23:01:18 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/07/2025 09:01 PM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 13:50:13 +0100, The Todal wrote:
During his performance at Glastonbury, he led a chant of "Death, death >>>>> to the IDF".
But does this break any laws? It isn't antisemitic and it cannot cause >>>>> the audience to go and commit acts of violence towards the Israeli army, >>>>> can it?
It may be extremist, but it accurately reflects the indignation of most >>>>> decent people in the UK towards the behaviour of the IDF in Gaza.
Can I just check what November 5th celebrates ?
As the English people saw it, the apprehension of a terrorist.
We all know that.
Only if 'terrorist' is a meaningless insult to anyone we don't like; it was an
attempted coup aiming at the king and his ministers. It was simply not an
attempt at a reign of terror against the populace; that would have come
*after* the coup!
They would not have used the term "terrorist". But that's the modern way
of understanding the phenomenon.
On 7/2/25 13:40, The Todal wrote:
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/diane-abbott-condemned-after-jewish-
defence-forces-tweet/
She tweeted that “the Jewish Defence Force is gunning down
Palestinians as they queue for food”, along with the hashtag
“#GazaGenocide”.
Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, which contains
a substantial Jewish population, subsequently deleted the tweet.
unquote
I think it ought to be regarded as a forgiveable blunder, but it's
still a blunder. She should think before she tweets. Now, even though
there is a genocide taking place in Gaza, her terrible insult to the
entire Jewish population of the UK deserves her banishment.
Israel is the Jewish State. Confusing Jewish with Israeli is a natural mistake. It isn't even a partisan mistake, Zionists make the same mistake.
I have sympathy for Diane because I make mistakes like that. As a
computer programmer, it didn't matter that I often made simple mistakes, because I had a lot of safety nets. Safety nets that allowed me to catch
and correct errors. It didn't matter how many correctable mistakes I
made, as long as I got to the right answer eventually. Once I did that,
all the mistakes I made were irrelevant. There might be someone else who
made no silly mistakes but didn't have the insight to spot the correct solution, I was better than them.
Other jobs are different: doctors, air line pilots, or knife throwers
have to get it right all the time, otherwise there can be catastrophic consequences. I could never do those jobs, my mind wanders.
So the question we should consider is do we want politicians that always
have the right word at the tip of their tongue, or do what want
politicians who can think things through and come to a good conclusion eventually.
At the moment there is far too much concentration on political polish,
not enough on substance.
On 7/4/25 22:11, s|b wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 09:43:03 +0800, J Newman wrote:
A lot of innocent "paramedics" are terrorists, "journalists" moonlight
as snipers and a lot of kids are terrorists themselves.
Do you have an independent source for that?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/hamas-has-a-history-of-using- ambulances-for-war/
For decades, Palestinian terrorist groups have systematically turned ambulances, hospitals, schools and mosques into instruments of war. This
is not a rare abuse but an entrenched tactic: a strategic manipulation
of international law designed to endanger civilians and maximise
propaganda victories. During the Second Intifada, suicide bombers were smuggled through Israeli checkpoints in ambulances. In one infamous 2002 case, a bomb belt was hidden beneath a stretcher carrying a sick child. Captured Hamas fighters have confessed to using ambulances for ferrying weapons and personnel. Senior Hamas leadership shelters inside
hospitals, exploiting legal protections meant for civilians.
On 7/5/25 18:34, The Todal wrote:
On 05/07/2025 02:17, J Newman wrote:
On 7/4/25 22:11, s|b wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 09:43:03 +0800, J Newman wrote:
A lot of innocent "paramedics" are terrorists, "journalists" moonlight >>>>> as snipers and a lot of kids are terrorists themselves.
Do you have an independent source for that?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/hamas-has-a-history-of-using-
ambulances-for-war/
For decades, Palestinian terrorist groups have systematically turned
ambulances, hospitals, schools and mosques into instruments of war.
This is not a rare abuse but an entrenched tactic: a strategic
manipulation of international law designed to endanger civilians and
maximise propaganda victories. During the Second Intifada, suicide
bombers were smuggled through Israeli checkpoints in ambulances. In
one infamous 2002 case, a bomb belt was hidden beneath a stretcher
carrying a sick child. Captured Hamas fighters have confessed to
using ambulances for ferrying weapons and personnel. Senior Hamas
leadership shelters inside hospitals, exploiting legal protections
meant for civilians.
And by a process of flawed logic, the IDF regards all ambulances,
hospitals, schools and mosques as valid targets for bombing and
burning and drone attacks.
The Todal surely this type of debating style is beneath an enlightened, civilised lawyer like yourself. A combination of straw men and ad hom.
Where did I say all ambulances, schools and mosques?
But speaking of all, is there any hospital in Gaza that wasn't used as a terror base or terror tunnel entry/exit point?
One has to remember that "human shield" is a term with a unique
interpretation as far as the IDF is concerned. It means "human target".
A terrorist moonlighting as a school teacher or paramedic is a double
win for Hamas. They don't care about the Geneva Convention.
They get a pawn - Win #1
If the pawn dies, they get a martyr for anti-Semitic hand wringers to
point at and blame the Jews.
No Jews = No news.
I'm glad I cancelled my subscription to The Spectator, but theyWell it's the first time I heard that Google is a drunken white bigot :)
continue to offer me inducements to subscribe again, usually in the
form of strong alcohol. The typical Spectator reader is a drunken
white bigot, I suspect.
Do you have an independent source for that?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/hamas-has-a-history-of-using-ambulances-for-war/
On 05/07/2025 13:03, J Newman wrote:
On 7/5/25 18:34, The Todal wrote:
On 05/07/2025 02:17, J Newman wrote:
On 7/4/25 22:11, s|b wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 09:43:03 +0800, J Newman wrote:
A lot of innocent "paramedics" are terrorists, "journalists" moonlight >>>>>> as snipers and a lot of kids are terrorists themselves.
Do you have an independent source for that?
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/hamas-has-a-history-of-using-
ambulances-for-war/
For decades, Palestinian terrorist groups have systematically turned
ambulances, hospitals, schools and mosques into instruments of war.
This is not a rare abuse but an entrenched tactic: a strategic
manipulation of international law designed to endanger civilians and
maximise propaganda victories. During the Second Intifada, suicide
bombers were smuggled through Israeli checkpoints in ambulances. In
one infamous 2002 case, a bomb belt was hidden beneath a stretcher
carrying a sick child. Captured Hamas fighters have confessed to
using ambulances for ferrying weapons and personnel. Senior Hamas
leadership shelters inside hospitals, exploiting legal protections
meant for civilians.
And by a process of flawed logic, the IDF regards all ambulances,
hospitals, schools and mosques as valid targets for bombing and
burning and drone attacks.
The Todal surely this type of debating style is beneath an enlightened,
civilised lawyer like yourself. A combination of straw men and ad hom.
Where did I say all ambulances, schools and mosques?
I have no idea where you said it, but you quoted an article in The
Spectator and that's what I was responding to.
But speaking of all, is there any hospital in Gaza that wasn't used as a
terror base or terror tunnel entry/exit point?
One has to remember that "human shield" is a term with a unique
interpretation as far as the IDF is concerned. It means "human target".
A terrorist moonlighting as a school teacher or paramedic is a double
win for Hamas. They don't care about the Geneva Convention.
There aren't any such terrorists moonlighting as school teachers or paramedics. The IDF never discloses which of the many men women and
children whom it slaughters are connected to Hamas. Much easier to say
there was a Hamas control and command post under the teacher's desk, or
at the nurses' working station. But journalists are not permitted to go
and investigate whether such IDF propaganda is true. You know this, of course. But you approve.
They get a pawn - Win #1
If the pawn dies, they get a martyr for anti-Semitic hand wringers to
point at and blame the Jews.
No Jews = No news.
I'm glad I cancelled my subscription to The Spectator, but theyWell it's the first time I heard that Google is a drunken white bigot :)
continue to offer me inducements to subscribe again, usually in the
form of strong alcohol. The typical Spectator reader is a drunken
white bigot, I suspect.
You imagine that The Spectator is the same as Google? Interesting.
It shows how much Israel has departed from civilised norms when they boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the battlefield "because they might have been disciplined fighting men in their spare time". Actually battlefield medics are nearly always members of armies (though probably not in
Hamas' case as the majority of casualties are civilians) and civilised norms of behaviour would be allowing them to do their work when it did not prejudice
active fighting. But so far have the evil members of the IDF departed from any
semblance of modern Western civilisation that they are willing to boast of killing two dozen babies and other non-combatants in order to kill one paramedic, who might be finishing his shift so he could have a meal in a cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades for the night shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable person could put forward such a farcical justification for ethnic cleansing.
For the avoidance of doubt, whoever originally claimed this about the bulk of medics, doctors and UN aid workers was lying.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departed from civilised norms when they
boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the battlefield
"because they might have been disciplined fighting men in their spare
time". Actually battlefield medics are nearly always members of
armies (though probably not in Hamas' case as the majority of
casualties are civilians) and civilised norms of behaviour would be
allowing them to do their work when it did not prejudice active
fighting. But so far have the evil members of the IDF departed from
any semblance of modern Western civilisation that they are willing to
boast of killing two dozen babies and other non-combatants in order
to kill one paramedic, who might be finishing his shift so he could
have a meal in a cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades
for the night shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable
person could put forward such a farcical justification for ethnic
cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite their
heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran, specifically from Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departed from civilised norms when they boast of
killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the battlefield "because they
might have been disciplined fighting men in their spare time". Actually
battlefield medics are nearly always members of armies (though probably not in
Hamas' case as the majority of casualties are civilians) and civilised norms >> of behaviour would be allowing them to do their work when it did not prejudice
active fighting. But so far have the evil members of the IDF departed from any
semblance of modern Western civilisation that they are willing to boast of >> killing two dozen babies and other non-combatants in order to kill one
paramedic, who might be finishing his shift so he could have a meal in a cafe
before joining up with his fighting comrades for the night shift. It is
laughable that an apparently reasonable person could put forward such a
farcical justification for ethnic cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite their
heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran, specifically from Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
The Israelis at least know what they are dealing with, even if the
chanting, flag-waving, hand-wringing morons don’t.
For the avoidance of doubt, whoever originally claimed this about the bulk of
medics, doctors and UN aid workers was lying.
It isn’t ’the bulk’ that’s the problem, is it?
[…]
If you want some actual violent and reprehensible religious
commandments,
both the Torah and the Bible command their adherents to commit genocide
On 6 Jul 2025 at 12:11:58 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departed from civilised norms when they boast of
killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the battlefield "because they >>> might have been disciplined fighting men in their spare time". Actually
battlefield medics are nearly always members of armies (though probably not in
Hamas' case as the majority of casualties are civilians) and civilised norms
of behaviour would be allowing them to do their work when it did not prejudice
active fighting. But so far have the evil members of the IDF departed from any
semblance of modern Western civilisation that they are willing to boast of >>> killing two dozen babies and other non-combatants in order to kill one
paramedic, who might be finishing his shift so he could have a meal in a cafe
before joining up with his fighting comrades for the night shift. It is
laughable that an apparently reasonable person could put forward such a
farcical justification for ethnic cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite their
heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran, specifically from
Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
A silly form of debate; you can get identical bloody imprecations from the Bible and presumably Jewish scriptures. We don't see our worthy archbishops smiting rival tribes whatever the bible says.
The Israelis at least know what they are dealing with, even if the
chanting, flag-waving, hand-wringing morons don’t.
For the avoidance of doubt, whoever originally claimed this about the bulk of
medics, doctors and UN aid workers was lying.
It isn’t ’the bulk’ that’s the problem, is it?
[…]
No? They are the ones being killed.
On 2025-07-06, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departed from civilised norms when they
boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the battlefield
"because they might have been disciplined fighting men in their spare
time". Actually battlefield medics are nearly always members of
armies (though probably not in Hamas' case as the majority of
casualties are civilians) and civilised norms of behaviour would be
allowing them to do their work when it did not prejudice active
fighting. But so far have the evil members of the IDF departed from
any semblance of modern Western civilisation that they are willing to
boast of killing two dozen babies and other non-combatants in order
to kill one paramedic, who might be finishing his shift so he could
have a meal in a cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades
for the night shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable
person could put forward such a farcical justification for ethnic
cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite their
heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran, specifically from
Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
No it isn't, it doesn't say anything about "smite their heads from their shoulders". And is there some reason you omitted to mention the previous verse, which says "Fight in the cause of Allah only against those who
wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.", or the next verse, which says "But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
i.e. it is actually saying you must only fight against aggressors,
you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease their aggression
you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line with modern ethics wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all wars were fought in such
an enlightened manner.
If you want some actual violent and reprehensible religious
commandments, both the Torah and the Bible command their adherents
to commit genocide against the Amalekites: e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go,
attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them.
Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants,
cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Replace "Amalekites" with "Palestinians" and you've got a good description of what's going on
in Gaza.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departed from civilised norms when they
boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the battlefield
"because they might have been disciplined fighting men in their spare
time". Actually battlefield medics are nearly always members of
armies (though probably not in Hamas' case as the majority of
casualties are civilians) and civilised norms of behaviour would be
allowing them to do their work when it did not prejudice active
fighting. But so far have the evil members of the IDF departed from
any semblance of modern Western civilisation that they are willing to
boast of killing two dozen babies and other non-combatants in order
to kill one paramedic, who might be finishing his shift so he could
have a meal in a cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades
for the night shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable
person could put forward such a farcical justification for ethnic
cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite their
heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran, specifically from >>> Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
No it isn't, it doesn't say anything about "smite their heads from their
shoulders". And is there some reason you omitted to mention the previous
verse, which says "Fight in the cause of Allah only against those who
wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like
transgressors.", or the next verse, which says "But if they cease, then
surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
i.e. it is actually saying you must only fight against aggressors,
you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease their aggression
you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line with modern ethics
wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all wars were fought in such
an enlightened manner.
Like Hamas in Gaza, you mean? Fought by people who really believe this smiting stuff?
What does the Quran say about violent raids on neighbouring countries,
with rape and mutilation as part of the package?
Those who carried out the 7/7 bombings *believed* in what they were doing. Nothing ‘enlightened’ there. Or the rockets from Gaza or Hezbollah or Yemen.
If you want some actual violent and reprehensible religious
commandments, both the Torah and the Bible command their adherents
to commit genocide against the Amalekites: e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go,
attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them.
Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants,
cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Replace "Amalekites" with
"Palestinians" and you've got a good description of what's going on
in Gaza.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a lovely Christmas.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departed from civilised norms when they
boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the battlefield
"because they might have been disciplined fighting men in their spare
time". Actually battlefield medics are nearly always members of
armies (though probably not in Hamas' case as the majority of
casualties are civilians) and civilised norms of behaviour would be
allowing them to do their work when it did not prejudice active
fighting. But so far have the evil members of the IDF departed from
any semblance of modern Western civilisation that they are willing to
boast of killing two dozen babies and other non-combatants in order
to kill one paramedic, who might be finishing his shift so he could
have a meal in a cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades
for the night shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable
person could put forward such a farcical justification for ethnic
cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite their
heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran, specifically from >>> Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
No it isn't, it doesn't say anything about "smite their heads from their
shoulders". And is there some reason you omitted to mention the previous
verse, which says "Fight in the cause of Allah only against those who
wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like
transgressors.", or the next verse, which says "But if they cease, then
surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
i.e. it is actually saying you must only fight against aggressors,
you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease their aggression
you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line with modern ethics
wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all wars were fought in such
an enlightened manner.
Like Hamas in Gaza, you mean? Fought by people who really believe this smiting stuff?
What does the Quran say about violent raids on neighbouring countries, with rape and mutilation as part of the package?
Those who carried out the 7/7 bombings *believed* in what they were doing. Nothing ‘enlightened’ there. Or the rockets from Gaza or Hezbollah or Yemen.
Most Jewish Israelis evidently believe that all the citizens of Gaza are
as guilty as Hamas and therefore deserve to die.
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 21:34:06 +0100, The Todal wrote:
Most Jewish Israelis evidently believe that all the citizens of Gaza are
as guilty as Hamas and therefore deserve to die.
Presumably their god doesn't do irony ?
On 08/07/2025 08:40 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2025 21:34:06 +0100, The Todal wrote:
Most Jewish Israelis evidently believe that all the citizens of Gaza are >>> as guilty as Hamas and therefore deserve to die.
Presumably their god doesn't do irony ?
Or perhaps some posters here don't know a strawman when they see one.
Asserting something does not mean that it is true.
On 8 Jul 2025 at 10:49:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
When a reputable person reports reputable national polls in a country
with which they are familiar it seems reasonable to suppose he is
speaking truthfully, unless it is something one really doesn't want to
hear.
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 14:17:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 at 10:49:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
When a reputable person reports reputable national polls in a country
with which they are familiar it seems reasonable to suppose he is
speaking truthfully, unless it is something one really doesn't want to
hear.
Which is all very well, as long as "truth" is something like "2+2=4", and
not playing around with semantics and definitions like "is this a
genocide" ?
What is the "truth" around the actions of RAF Bomber Command in the war ? There are facts, of course. But what truth do they speak to ?
Shockingly, I make my own mind up about what is true or not. If it
happens to be what someone else is asserting it's all very well, but it's
not because of their assertions ... in many ways it's despite them.
On 2025-07-07, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departedfrom civilised norms when they
boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the battlefield >>>>> "because they might have been disciplined fighting men in their spare >>>>> time". Actually battlefield medics are nearly always members of
armies (though probably not in Hamas' case as the majority of
casualties are civilians) and civilised norms of behaviour would be
allowing them to do their work when it did not prejudice active
fighting. But so far have the evil members of the IDF departed from
any semblance of modern Western civilisation that they are willing to >>>>> boast of killing two dozen babies and other non-combatants in order
to kill one paramedic, who might be finishing his shift so he could
have a meal in a cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades
for the night shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable
person could put forward such a farcical justification for ethnic
cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite their >>>> heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran, specifically from >>>> Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
No it isn't, it doesn't say anything about "smite their heads from their >>> shoulders". And is there some reason you omitted to mention the previous >>> verse, which says "Fight in the cause of Allah only against those who
wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like
transgressors.", or the next verse, which says "But if they cease, then
surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
i.e. it is actually saying you must only fight against aggressors,
you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease their aggression
you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line with modern ethics
wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all wars were fought in such
an enlightened manner.
Like Hamas in Gaza, you mean? Fought by people who really believe this
smiting stuff?
I'm afraid I cannot meaningfully comment on the personal beliefs of
Hamas members.
What does the Quran say about violent raids on neighbouring countries,
with rape and mutilation as part of the package?
I've no idea. I was just pointing out that your claim about that verse
of the Quran was false and it basically says the complete opposite of
what you were saying.
Those who carried out the 7/7 bombings *believed* in what they were doing. >> Nothing ‘enlightened’ there. Or the rockets from Gaza or Hezbollah or
Yemen.
If you want some actual violent and reprehensible religious
commandments, both the Torah and the Bible command their adherents
to commit genocide against the Amalekites: e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go,
attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them.
Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants,
cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Replace "Amalekites" with
"Palestinians" and you've got a good description of what's going on
in Gaza.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a lovely Christmas.
You realise that makes no sense at all in response to what I said, right?
The truth was simply that the majority of Israelis blame the whole population of Gaza for the Hamas attacks and regard them all as guilty. Whether that was a belief supporting genocide was an opinion.
Even today as we speak, it is common in UK to blame Italians for being fascist 100
years ago. I get this on a daily basis in tolerant and enlightened Britain. Sometimes I
get both the "Fascist" and "Zionazi" at the same time, but it must be a Birmingham
thing.
Op 09/07/2025 om 00:21 schreef Roger Hayter:
The Allies during WW2 blamed all Italians for supporting Mussolini and
The truth was simply that the majority of Israelis blame the whole
population of Gaza for the Hamas attacks and regard them all as guilty.
Whether that was a belief supporting genocide was an opinion.
kept bombing civilians even after Italy's capitulation, but I am not
aware of crowds of liberal Brits chanting to "stop the genocide" back in 1944.
Even today as we speak, it is common in UK to blame Italians for being fascist 100 years ago. I get this on a daily basis in tolerant and enlightened Britain. Sometimes I get both the "Fascist" and "Zionazi" at
the same time, but it must be a Birmingham thing.
On 8 Jul 2025 at 18:07:22 BST, "Jethro_uk" wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jul 2025 14:17:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 Jul 2025 at 10:49:55 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
When a reputable person reports reputable national polls in a
country with which they are familiar it seems reasonable to suppose
he is speaking truthfully, unless it is something one really
doesn't want to hear.
Which is all very well, as long as "truth" is something like
"2+2=4", and not playing around with semantics and definitions like
"is this a genocide" ?
What is the "truth" around the actions of RAF Bomber Command in the
war ? There are facts, of course. But what truth do they speak to ?
Shockingly, I make my own mind up about what is true or not. If it
happens to be what someone else is asserting it's all very well, but
it's not because of their assertions ... in many ways it's despite
them.
The truth was simply that the majority of Israelis blame the whole
population of Gaza for the Hamas attacks and regard them all as
guilty. Whether that was a belief supporting genocide was an opinion.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-07, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departedfrom civilised norms when they >>>>>> boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the battlefield >>>>>> "because they might have been disciplined fighting men in their spare >>>>>> time". Actually battlefield medics are nearly always members of
armies (though probably not in Hamas' case as the majority of
casualties are civilians) and civilised norms of behaviour would be >>>>>> allowing them to do their work when it did not prejudice active
fighting. But so far have the evil members of the IDF departed from >>>>>> any semblance of modern Western civilisation that they are willing to >>>>>> boast of killing two dozen babies and other non-combatants in order >>>>>> to kill one paramedic, who might be finishing his shift so he could >>>>>> have a meal in a cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades >>>>>> for the night shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable >>>>>> person could put forward such a farcical justification for ethnic
cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite their >>>>> heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran, specifically from >>>>> Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
No it isn't, it doesn't say anything about "smite their heads from their >>>> shoulders". And is there some reason you omitted to mention the previous >>>> verse, which says "Fight in the cause of Allah only against those who
wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like >>>> transgressors.", or the next verse, which says "But if they cease, then >>>> surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
i.e. it is actually saying you must only fight against aggressors,
you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease their aggression >>>> you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line with modern ethics >>>> wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all wars were fought in such >>>> an enlightened manner.
Like Hamas in Gaza, you mean? Fought by people who really believe this
smiting stuff?
I'm afraid I cannot meaningfully comment on the personal beliefs of
Hamas members.
The personal beliefs of Hamas members isn’t the issue here, what is important is the policy, doctrine, and tactics of Hamas that is crucial;
and this comprises the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of all Jews.
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and
present threat of genocide.
What does the Quran say about violent raids on neighbouring countries,
with rape and mutilation as part of the package?
I've no idea. I was just pointing out that your claim about that verse
of the Quran was false and it basically says the complete opposite of
what you were saying.
That depends on the wider context relating to your quotation from the
Quran. Surah Al-Baqarah (“The Cow”) consists of 286 verses, making it one of the longest chapters in the Quran.
Those who carried out the 7/7 bombings *believed* in what they were doing. >>> Nothing ‘enlightened’ there. Or the rockets from Gaza or Hezbollah or >>> Yemen.
<silence>
If you want some actual violent and reprehensible religious
commandments, both the Torah and the Bible command their adherents
to commit genocide against the Amalekites: e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go, >>>> attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them.
Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants,
cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Replace "Amalekites" with
"Palestinians" and you've got a good description of what's going on
in Gaza.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a lovely Christmas.
You realise that makes no sense at all in response to what I said, right?
It only makes sense if one understands that starting a response with the
word ’if’ undermines whatever point it is that follows.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm afraid I cannot meaningfully comment on the personal beliefs of
Hamas members.
The personal beliefs of Hamas members isn’t the issue here, what is important is the policy, doctrine, and tactics of Hamas that is crucial;
and this comprises the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of all Jews. It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and
present threat of genocide.
On 2025-07-09, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-07, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departedfrom civilised norms when they >>>>>>> boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the battlefield >>>>>>> "because they might have been disciplined fighting men in their spare >>>>>>> time". Actually battlefield medics are nearly always members of
armies (though probably not in Hamas' case as the majority of
casualties are civilians) and civilised norms of behaviour would be >>>>>>> allowing them to do their work when it did not prejudice active
fighting. But so far have the evil members of the IDF departed from >>>>>>> any semblance of modern Western civilisation that they are willing to >>>>>>> boast of killing two dozen babies and other non-combatants in order >>>>>>> to kill one paramedic, who might be finishing his shift so he could >>>>>>> have a meal in a cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades >>>>>>> for the night shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable >>>>>>> person could put forward such a farcical justification for ethnic >>>>>>> cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite their >>>>>> heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran, specifically from >>>>>> Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
No it isn't, it doesn't say anything about "smite their heads from their >>>>> shoulders". And is there some reason you omitted to mention the previous >>>>> verse, which says "Fight in the cause of Allah only against those who >>>>> wage war against you, but do not exceed the limits. Allah does not like >>>>> transgressors.", or the next verse, which says "But if they cease, then >>>>> surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
i.e. it is actually saying you must only fight against aggressors,
you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease their aggression >>>>> you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line with modern ethics >>>>> wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all wars were fought in such >>>>> an enlightened manner.
Like Hamas in Gaza, you mean? Fought by people who really believe this >>>> smiting stuff?
I'm afraid I cannot meaningfully comment on the personal beliefs of
Hamas members.
The personal beliefs of Hamas members isn’t the issue here, what is
important is the policy, doctrine, and tactics of Hamas that is crucial;
and this comprises the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of all Jews.
My understanding is that that is false. But the "policy, doctrine
and tactics of Hamas" are not "crucial", I wasn't talking about them
at all. I was just pointing out that your claims about the Quranic
verse you identified were false.
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and
present threat of genocide.
Every part of that sentence is false. Is is a thing to be greatly
wondered about. What Israel is doing cannot possibly be considered
"defence". And there is no "real and present threat of genocide".
As I have pointed out previously, regardless of whether Hamas would
or would not commit genocide if they could, the fact is that they
can't. They don't have the power to do so.
What does the Quran say about violent raids on neighbouring countries, >>>> with rape and mutilation as part of the package?
I've no idea. I was just pointing out that your claim about that verse
of the Quran was false and it basically says the complete opposite of
what you were saying.
That depends on the wider context relating to your quotation from the
Quran. Surah Al-Baqarah (“The Cow”) consists of 286 verses, making it one
of the longest chapters in the Quran.
Ok. Feel free to read it then and see if you can come up with an
meaingful argument as to how you weren't wrong.
Those who carried out the 7/7 bombings *believed* in what they were doing. >>>> Nothing ‘enlightened’ there. Or the rockets from Gaza or Hezbollah or >>>> Yemen.
<silence>
What response were you expecting there? You made a statement.
It doesn't require a response.
It only makes sense if one understands that starting a response with theIf you want some actual violent and reprehensible religious
commandments, both the Torah and the Bible command their adherents
to commit genocide against the Amalekites: e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go, >>>>> attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them.
Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, >>>>> cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Replace "Amalekites" with
"Palestinians" and you've got a good description of what's going on
in Gaza.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a lovely Christmas. >>You realise that makes no sense at all in response to what I said, right? >>
word ’if’ undermines whatever point it is that follows.
So you undermined your own point then?
Since you raise the issue of the rules of war, which ones are Hamas following?
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and
present threat of genocide.
The IDF has adopted Nazi tactics. Unfortunately it is deemed antisemitic
to compare the IDF to the Nazi SS, but the comparison is wholly
justified.
On 07/07/2025 08:48, Spike wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departed from civilised norms when
they boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the
battlefield "because they might have been disciplined fighting
men in their spare time". Actually battlefield medics are nearly
always members of armies (though probably not in Hamas' case as
the majority of casualties are civilians) and civilised norms of
behaviour would be allowing them to do their work when it did not
prejudice active fighting. But so far have the evil members of
the IDF departed from any semblance of modern Western
civilisation that they are willing to boast of killing two dozen
babies and other non-combatants in order to kill one paramedic,
who might be finishing his shift so he could have a meal in a
cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades for the night
shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable person could
put forward such a farcical justification for ethnic cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite
their heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran,
specifically from Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
No it isn't, it doesn't say anything about "smite their heads from
their shoulders". And is there some reason you omitted to mention
the previous verse, which says "Fight in the cause of Allah only
against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the
limits. Allah does not like transgressors.", or the next verse,
which says "But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving,
Most Merciful."
i.e. it is actually saying you must only fight against aggressors,
you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease their
aggression you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line
with modern ethics wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all
wars were fought in such an enlightened manner.
Like Hamas in Gaza, you mean? Fought by people who really believe
this smiting stuff?
What does the Quran say about violent raids on neighbouring
countries, with rape and mutilation as part of the package?
Those who carried out the 7/7 bombings *believed* in what they were
doing. Nothing enlightened there. Or the rockets from Gaza or
Hezbollah or Yemen.
Most Jewish Israelis evidently believe that all the citizens of Gaza
are as guilty as Hamas and therefore deserve to die.
This is a Nazi mentality and it is truly shameful.
https://mondoweiss.net/2025/07/poll-overwhelming-majority-of- jewish-israelis-share-genocidal-belief-there-are-no-innocent-
people-in-gaza/
Poll: Overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis share genocidal belief
there are no innocent people in Gaza A Hebrew University poll shows
an overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis agree with the genocidal
idea that there are "no innocents in Gaza."
In 2018, then Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that "there are
no innocent people in the Gaza Strip."
In October 2023, the Israeli President Isaac Herzog paraphrased the
same idea by saying that "an entire nation out there that is
responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved
its not true." This statement was one of the many genocidal
statements that became part of the case for genocide at the ICJ in
South Africa vs. Israel.
On 11/07/2025 09:26, Spike wrote:
Since you raise the issue of the rules of war, which ones are Hamas
following?
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and
present threat of genocide.
On 10th June 1944 a Nazi SS division arrived at the village of Oradour- Sure-Glane, and massacred 643 civilians. The justification, for the
Nazis, was that the French Resistance wasn't following the rules of war
and therefore it was reasonable to punish ordinary civilians.
The IDF has adopted Nazi tactics. Unfortunately it is deemed antisemitic
to compare the IDF to the Nazi SS, but the comparison is wholly justified.
Op 11/07/2025 om 11:02 schreef The Todal:
On 11/07/2025 09:26, Spike wrote:
Since you raise the issue of the rules of war, which ones are Hamas
following?
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and >>>>> present threat of genocide.
On 10th June 1944 a Nazi SS division arrived at the village of Oradour-
Sure-Glane, and massacred 643 civilians. The justification, for the
Nazis, was that the French Resistance wasn't following the rules of war
and therefore it was reasonable to punish ordinary civilians.
The IDF has adopted Nazi tactics. Unfortunately it is deemed antisemitic
to compare the IDF to the Nazi SS, but the comparison is wholly justified.
Selective memory much?
The Allies killed 2000 Italian civilians at the battle of Monte Cassino alone. Why equate the IDF with the Nazis when you can equate them with
the Allies?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-09, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:My understanding is that that is false. But the "policy, doctrine
On 2025-07-07, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departedfrom civilised norms when they >>>>>>>> boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the battlefield >>>>>>>> "because they might have been disciplined fighting men in their spare >>>>>>>> time". Actually battlefield medics are nearly always members of >>>>>>>> armies (though probably not in Hamas' case as the majority of
casualties are civilians) and civilised norms of behaviour would be >>>>>>>> allowing them to do their work when it did not prejudice active >>>>>>>> fighting. But so far have the evil members of the IDF departed from >>>>>>>> any semblance of modern Western civilisation that they are willing to >>>>>>>> boast of killing two dozen babies and other non-combatants in order >>>>>>>> to kill one paramedic, who might be finishing his shift so he could >>>>>>>> have a meal in a cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades >>>>>>>> for the night shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable >>>>>>>> person could put forward such a farcical justification for ethnic >>>>>>>> cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite >>>>>>> their heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran,
specifically from Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
No it isn't, it doesn't say anything about "smite their heads
from their shoulders". And is there some reason you omitted to
mention the previous verse, which says "Fight in the cause of
Allah only against those who wage war against you, but do not
exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.", or the
next verse, which says "But if they cease, then surely Allah is
All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
i.e. it is actually saying you must only fight against aggressors, >>>>>> you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease their aggression >>>>>> you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line with modern ethics >>>>>> wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all wars were fought in such >>>>>> an enlightened manner.
Like Hamas in Gaza, you mean? Fought by people who really believe this >>>>> smiting stuff?
I'm afraid I cannot meaningfully comment on the personal beliefs of
Hamas members.
The personal beliefs of Hamas members isn’t the issue here, what is
important is the policy, doctrine, and tactics of Hamas that is crucial; >>> and this comprises the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of all Jews. >>
and tactics of Hamas" are not "crucial", I wasn't talking about them
at all. I was just pointing out that your claims about the Quranic
verse you identified were false.
Since you raise the issue of the rules of war, which ones are Hamas following?
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and
present threat of genocide.
Every part of that sentence is false. Is is a thing to be greatly
wondered about. What Israel is doing cannot possibly be considered
"defence". And there is no "real and present threat of genocide".
As I have pointed out previously, regardless of whether Hamas would
or would not commit genocide if they could, the fact is that they
can't. They don't have the power to do so.
Then ask yourself why they have this declared aim that amounts to genocide
of the Jewish people.
What does the Quran say about violent raids on neighbouring countries, >>>>> with rape and mutilation as part of the package?
I've no idea. I was just pointing out that your claim about that verse >>>> of the Quran was false and it basically says the complete opposite of
what you were saying.
That depends on the wider context relating to your quotation from the
Quran. Surah Al-Baqarah (“The Cow”) consists of 286 verses, making it one
of the longest chapters in the Quran.
Ok. Feel free to read it then and see if you can come up with an
meaingful argument as to how you weren't wrong.
Those who carried out the 7/7 bombings *believed* in what they
were doing. Nothing ‘enlightened’ there. Or the rockets from Gaza >>>>> or Hezbollah or Yemen.
<silence>
What response were you expecting there? You made a statement.
It doesn't require a response.
It is a statement that contradicts your soft view of Hamas’ gentlemanly rule-bound conduct of war.
It only makes sense if one understands that starting a response with the >>> word ’if’ undermines whatever point it is that follows.If you want some actual violent and reprehensible religious
commandments, both the Torah and the Bible command their adherents >>>>>> to commit genocide against the Amalekites: e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go, >>>>>> attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. >>>>>> Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, >>>>>> cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Replace "Amalekites" with
"Palestinians" and you've got a good description of what's going on >>>>>> in Gaza.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a lovely Christmas. >>>You realise that makes no sense at all in response to what I said, right? >>>
So you undermined your own point then?
Where did I start that statement with the word ‘if’?
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:02:18 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The IDF has adopted Nazi tactics. Unfortunately it is deemed antisemitic
to compare the IDF to the Nazi SS, but the comparison is wholly
justified.
Surely "anti-semitic" means "opposed without reason" ?
What if there *is* a reason ?
A fear of lions is not a phobia.
On 11/07/2025 11:08 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:02:18 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The IDF has adopted Nazi tactics. Unfortunately it is deemed antisemitic >>> to compare the IDF to the Nazi SS, but the comparison is wholly
justified.
Surely "anti-semitic" means "opposed without reason" ?
What if there *is* a reason ?
A fear of lions is not a phobia.
Two separate concepts are being tangentially confused there (and it's probably a symptom of modern misunderstandings).
If you simply dislike or hate Jewish people, you are anti-semitic.
If, however, you are frightened of Jewish people, you have "semite-
phobia" (you might want to substitute a synonym for "semite").
The same applies to lions.
It is quite normal to be wary, cautious or circumspect when it comes to lions. It's why they are kept in secure enclosures when in zoos, etc,
and why safari trips are conducted in reasonably secure vehicles.
It is quite irrational to be frightened of lions as a species.
But these days "phobic" does seem to be accepted by some ill-advised
people as meaning "hating", rather than its only correct meaning, which
is "scared by".
But of course, it's Greek and that is probably enough for some to think
it sounds good, even when mis-used.
On 21:34 7 Jul 2025, The Todal said:
On 07/07/2025 08:48, Spike wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departed from civilised norms when
they boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the
battlefield "because they might have been disciplined fighting
men in their spare time". Actually battlefield medics are nearly
always members of armies (though probably not in Hamas' case as
the majority of casualties are civilians) and civilised norms of
behaviour would be allowing them to do their work when it did not
prejudice active fighting. But so far have the evil members of
the IDF departed from any semblance of modern Western
civilisation that they are willing to boast of killing two dozen
babies and other non-combatants in order to kill one paramedic,
who might be finishing his shift so he could have a meal in a
cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades for the night
shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable person could
put forward such a farcical justification for ethnic cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite
their heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran,
specifically from Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
No it isn't, it doesn't say anything about "smite their heads from
their shoulders". And is there some reason you omitted to mention
the previous verse, which says "Fight in the cause of Allah only
against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the
limits. Allah does not like transgressors.", or the next verse,
which says "But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving,
Most Merciful."
i.e. it is actually saying you must only fight against aggressors,
you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease their
aggression you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line
with modern ethics wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all
wars were fought in such an enlightened manner.
Like Hamas in Gaza, you mean? Fought by people who really believe
this smiting stuff?
What does the Quran say about violent raids on neighbouring
countries, with rape and mutilation as part of the package?
Those who carried out the 7/7 bombings *believed* in what they were
doing. Nothing ‘enlightened’ there. Or the rockets from Gaza or
Hezbollah or Yemen.
Most Jewish Israelis evidently believe that all the citizens of Gaza
are as guilty as Hamas and therefore deserve to die.
This is a Nazi mentality and it is truly shameful.
https://mondoweiss.net/2025/07/poll-overwhelming-majority-of-
jewish-israelis-share-genocidal-belief-there-are-no-innocent-
people-in-gaza/
Poll: Overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis share genocidal belief
there are ‘no innocent people in Gaza’ A Hebrew University poll shows
an overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis agree with the genocidal
idea that there are "no innocents in Gaza."
In 2018, then Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that "there are
no innocent people in the Gaza Strip."
In October 2023, the Israeli President Isaac Herzog paraphrased the
same idea by saying that "an entire nation out there that is
responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved
— it’s not true." This statement was one of the many genocidal
statements that became part of the case for genocide at the ICJ in
South Africa vs. Israel.
It's quite a large leap of logic to go from that alleged involvement to
the need to murder the entire population.
On 11/07/2025 11:08 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:02:18 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The IDF has adopted Nazi tactics. Unfortunately it is deemed antisemitic >>>to compare the IDF to the Nazi SS, but the comparison is wholly >>>justified.
Surely "anti-semitic" means "opposed without reason" ?
What if there is a reason ?
A fear of lions is not a phobia.
Two separate concepts are being tangentially confused there (and it's >probably a symptom of modern misunderstandings).
If you simply dislike or hate Jewish people, you are anti-semitic.
If, however, you are frightened of Jewish people, you have "semite-phobia" >(you might want to substitute a synonym for "semite").
The same applies to lions.
It is quite normal to be wary, cautious or circumspect when it comes to >lions. It's why they are kept in secure enclosures when in zoos, etc, and
why safari trips are conducted in reasonably secure vehicles.
It is quite irrational to be frightened of lions as a species.
But these days "phobic" does seem to be accepted by some ill-advised
people as meaning "hating", rather than its only correct meaning, which is >"scared by".
But of course, it's Greek and that is probably enough for some to think it >sounds good, even when mis-used.
On 11/07/2025 13:33, JNugent wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:08 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:02:18 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The IDF has adopted Nazi tactics. Unfortunately it is deemed antisemitic >>>> to compare the IDF to the Nazi SS, but the comparison is wholly
justified.
Surely "anti-semitic" means "opposed without reason" ?
What if there *is* a reason ?
A fear of lions is not a phobia.
Two separate concepts are being tangentially confused there (and it's
probably a symptom of modern misunderstandings).
If you simply dislike or hate Jewish people, you are anti-semitic.
If, however, you are frightened of Jewish people, you have "semite-
phobia" (you might want to substitute a synonym for "semite").
The same applies to lions.
It is quite normal to be wary, cautious or circumspect when it comes to
lions. It's why they are kept in secure enclosures when in zoos, etc,
and why safari trips are conducted in reasonably secure vehicles.
It is quite irrational to be frightened of lions as a species.
But these days "phobic" does seem to be accepted by some ill-advised
people as meaning "hating", rather than its only correct meaning, which
is "scared by".
But of course, it's Greek and that is probably enough for some to think
it sounds good, even when mis-used.
I'm sure it's very pedantic of me to say this, but "homophobia" means
"fear of the same" rather than what we are supposed to believe it to
mean. Not fear of the same sex, not fear of homosexuals.
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-09, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-07, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departedfrom civilised norms when they >>>>>>>>> boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the battlefield >>>>>>>>> "because they might have been disciplined fighting men in their spare >>>>>>>>> time". Actually battlefield medics are nearly always members of >>>>>>>>> armies (though probably not in Hamas' case as the majority of >>>>>>>>> casualties are civilians) and civilised norms of behaviour would be >>>>>>>>> allowing them to do their work when it did not prejudice active >>>>>>>>> fighting. But so far have the evil members of the IDF departed from >>>>>>>>> any semblance of modern Western civilisation that they are willing to >>>>>>>>> boast of killing two dozen babies and other non-combatants in order >>>>>>>>> to kill one paramedic, who might be finishing his shift so he could >>>>>>>>> have a meal in a cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades >>>>>>>>> for the night shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable >>>>>>>>> person could put forward such a farcical justification for ethnic >>>>>>>>> cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite >>>>>>>> their heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran,
specifically from Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
No it isn't, it doesn't say anything about "smite their heads
from their shoulders". And is there some reason you omitted to
mention the previous verse, which says "Fight in the cause of
Allah only against those who wage war against you, but do not
exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.", or the
next verse, which says "But if they cease, then surely Allah is
All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
i.e. it is actually saying you must only fight against aggressors, >>>>>>> you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease their aggression >>>>>>> you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line with modern ethics >>>>>>> wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all wars were fought in such >>>>>>> an enlightened manner.
Like Hamas in Gaza, you mean? Fought by people who really believe this >>>>>> smiting stuff?
I'm afraid I cannot meaningfully comment on the personal beliefs of
Hamas members.
The personal beliefs of Hamas members isn’t the issue here, what is
important is the policy, doctrine, and tactics of Hamas that is crucial; >>>> and this comprises the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of all Jews.
My understanding is that that is false. But the "policy, doctrine
and tactics of Hamas" are not "crucial", I wasn't talking about them
at all. I was just pointing out that your claims about the Quranic
verse you identified were false.
Since you raise the issue of the rules of war, which ones are Hamas
following?
I've no idea; sadly my application to sit on the Hamas (Military
Activities) Oversight and Review Board has not been approved.
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and
present threat of genocide.
Every part of that sentence is false. Is is a thing to be greatly
wondered about. What Israel is doing cannot possibly be considered
"defence". And there is no "real and present threat of genocide".
As I have pointed out previously, regardless of whether Hamas would
or would not commit genocide if they could, the fact is that they
can't. They don't have the power to do so.
Then ask yourself why they have this declared aim that amounts to genocide >> of the Jewish people.
Again it is my understanding that this is false and they do not have any
such declared aim.
What does the Quran say about violent raids on neighbouring countries, >>>>>> with rape and mutilation as part of the package?
I've no idea. I was just pointing out that your claim about that verse >>>>> of the Quran was false and it basically says the complete opposite of >>>>> what you were saying.
That depends on the wider context relating to your quotation from the
Quran. Surah Al-Baqarah (“The Cow”) consists of 286 verses, making it one
of the longest chapters in the Quran.
Ok. Feel free to read it then and see if you can come up with an
meaingful argument as to how you weren't wrong.
Those who carried out the 7/7 bombings *believed* in what they
were doing. Nothing ‘enlightened’ there. Or the rockets from Gaza >>>>>> or Hezbollah or Yemen.
<silence>
What response were you expecting there? You made a statement.
It doesn't require a response.
It is a statement that contradicts your soft view of Hamas’ gentlemanly
rule-bound conduct of war.
What on earth are you on about? Where did I say anything whatsoever
about Hamas being "gentlemanly" and "rule-bound"?
It only makes sense if one understands that starting a response with the >>>> word ’if’ undermines whatever point it is that follows.If you want some actual violent and reprehensible religious
commandments, both the Torah and the Bible command their adherents >>>>>>> to commit genocide against the Amalekites: e.g. 1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go, >>>>>>> attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. >>>>>>> Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, >>>>>>> cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Replace "Amalekites" with >>>>>>> "Palestinians" and you've got a good description of what's going on >>>>>>> in Gaza.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a lovely Christmas. >>>>You realise that makes no sense at all in response to what I said, right? >>>>
So you undermined your own point then?
Where did I start that statement with the word ‘if’?
At the part where you wrote the letter "I" followed by the letter "f"
and a space. Amusingly, you in fact double-undermined it because that
was immediately followed by another "i" and another "f".
To avoid the whole issue, you could replace "If you want some actual"
in my original paragraph with "While you're looking for", which wouldn't change the meaning but would mean you couldn't reply with a misplaced aphorism about "ifs".
On 11/07/2025 11:08 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Two separate concepts are being tangentially confused there (and it's probably a symptom of modern misunderstandings).
If you simply dislike or hate Jewish people, you are anti-semitic.
On 11/07/2025 11:21, Pamela wrote:
On 21:34 7 Jul 2025, The Todal said:
On 07/07/2025 08:48, Spike wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departed from civilised norms when
they boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the
battlefield "because they might have been disciplined fighting
men in their spare time". Actually battlefield medics are
nearly always members of armies (though probably not in Hamas'
case as the majority of casualties are civilians) and civilised
norms of behaviour would be allowing them to do their work when
it did not prejudice active fighting. But so far have the evil
members of the IDF departed from any semblance of modern
Western civilisation that they are willing to boast of killing
two dozen babies and other non-combatants in order to kill one
paramedic, who might be finishing his shift so he could have a
meal in a cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades for
the night shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable
person could put forward such a farcical justification for
ethnic cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite
their heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran,
specifically from Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
No it isn't, it doesn't say anything about "smite their heads
from their shoulders". And is there some reason you omitted to
mention the previous verse, which says "Fight in the cause of
Allah only against those who wage war against you, but do not
exceed the limits. Allah does not like transgressors.", or the
next verse, which says "But if they cease, then surely Allah is
All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."
i.e. it is actually saying you must only fight against
aggressors, you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they
cease their aggression you must stop fighting them. Sounds
entirely in line with modern ethics wouldn't you say? One could
only wish that all wars were fought in such an enlightened
manner.
Like Hamas in Gaza, you mean? Fought by people who really believe
this smiting stuff?
What does the Quran say about violent raids on neighbouring
countries, with rape and mutilation as part of the package?
Those who carried out the 7/7 bombings *believed* in what they
were doing. Nothing enlightened there. Or the rockets from
Gaza or Hezbollah or Yemen.
Most Jewish Israelis evidently believe that all the citizens of
Gaza are as guilty as Hamas and therefore deserve to die.
This is a Nazi mentality and it is truly shameful.
https://mondoweiss.net/2025/07/poll-overwhelming-majority-of-
jewish-israelis-share-genocidal-belief-there-are-no-innocent-
people-in-gaza/
Poll: Overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis share genocidal
belief there are no innocent people in Gaza A Hebrew
University poll shows an overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis
agree with the genocidal idea that there are "no innocents in
Gaza."
In 2018, then Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that "there
are no innocent people in the Gaza Strip."
In October 2023, the Israeli President Isaac Herzog paraphrased the
same idea by saying that "an entire nation out there that is
responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved
its not true." This statement was one of the many genocidal
statements that became part of the case for genocide at the ICJ in
South Africa vs. Israel.
It's quite a large leap of logic to go from that alleged involvement
to the need to murder the entire population.
Is it possible, really, to raze Gaza to the ground without killing
huge numbers of people?
Israel's far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has said that,
from his perspective, defeating Hamas means completely razing Gaza.
Speaking in the West Bank settlement of Ofra, Smotrich said his idea
of winning in Gaza would mean the territory would be "destroyed" with civilians moved to a "humanitarian zone" in the south of the
Palestinian territory.
From there, he said, they would start to "leave in great numbers" to
third countries.
The minister also voiced hopes for the formal annexation of the West
Bank before the end of the current government's term.
On 11/07/2025 11:21, Pamela wrote:
On 21:34 7 Jul 2025, The Todal said:
On 07/07/2025 08:48, Spike wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-06, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It shows how much Israel has departed from civilised norms when
they boast of killing paramedics in civilian areas and on the
battlefield "because they might have been disciplined fighting
men in their spare time". Actually battlefield medics are nearly >>>>>>> always members of armies (though probably not in Hamas' case as
the majority of casualties are civilians) and civilised norms of >>>>>>> behaviour would be allowing them to do their work when it did not >>>>>>> prejudice active fighting. But so far have the evil members of
the IDF departed from any semblance of modern Western
civilisation that they are willing to boast of killing two dozen >>>>>>> babies and other non-combatants in order to kill one paramedic,
who might be finishing his shift so he could have a meal in a
cafe before joining up with his fighting comrades for the night
shift. It is laughable that an apparently reasonable person could >>>>>>> put forward such a farcical justification for ethnic cleansing.
The phrase "Smite them. Smite them wherever you find them. Smite
their heads from their shoulders" is a quote from the Quran,
specifically from Surah Al-Baqarah (Chapter 2), verse 191.
No it isn't, it doesn't say anything about "smite their heads from
their shoulders". And is there some reason you omitted to mention
the previous verse, which says "Fight in the cause of Allah only
against those who wage war against you, but do not exceed the
limits. Allah does not like transgressors.", or the next verse,
which says "But if they cease, then surely Allah is All-Forgiving,
Most Merciful."
i.e. it is actually saying you must only fight against aggressors,
you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease their
aggression you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line
with modern ethics wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all
wars were fought in such an enlightened manner.
Like Hamas in Gaza, you mean? Fought by people who really believe
this smiting stuff?
What does the Quran say about violent raids on neighbouring
countries, with rape and mutilation as part of the package?
Those who carried out the 7/7 bombings *believed* in what they were
doing. Nothing ‘enlightened’ there. Or the rockets from Gaza or
Hezbollah or Yemen.
Most Jewish Israelis evidently believe that all the citizens of Gaza
are as guilty as Hamas and therefore deserve to die.
This is a Nazi mentality and it is truly shameful.
https://mondoweiss.net/2025/07/poll-overwhelming-majority-of-
jewish-israelis-share-genocidal-belief-there-are-no-innocent-
people-in-gaza/
Poll: Overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis share genocidal belief
there are ‘no innocent people in Gaza’ A Hebrew University poll shows >>> an overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis agree with the genocidal
idea that there are "no innocents in Gaza."
In 2018, then Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that "there are
no innocent people in the Gaza Strip."
In October 2023, the Israeli President Isaac Herzog paraphrased the
same idea by saying that "an entire nation out there that is
responsible. This rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved
— it’s not true." This statement was one of the many genocidal
statements that became part of the case for genocide at the ICJ in
South Africa vs. Israel.
It's quite a large leap of logic to go from that alleged involvement to
the need to murder the entire population.
Is it possible, really, to raze Gaza to the ground without killing huge numbers of people?
Israel's far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has said that, from
his perspective, defeating Hamas means completely razing Gaza.
Speaking in the West Bank settlement of Ofra, Smotrich said his idea of winning in Gaza would mean the territory would be "destroyed" with
civilians moved to a "humanitarian zone" in the south of the Palestinian territory.
From there, he said, they would start to "leave in great numbers" to
third countries.
The minister also voiced hopes for the formal annexation of the West
Bank before the end of the current government's term.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-09, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and >>>>> present threat of genocide.
Every part of that sentence is false. Is is a thing to be greatly
wondered about. What Israel is doing cannot possibly be considered
"defence". And there is no "real and present threat of genocide".
As I have pointed out previously, regardless of whether Hamas would
or would not commit genocide if they could, the fact is that they
can't. They don't have the power to do so.
Then ask yourself why they have this declared aim that amounts to
genocide of the Jewish people.
Again it is my understanding that this is false and they do not have any
such declared aim.
You clearly haven’t read either a summary of Hamas’ founding charter
or the document itself.
What response were you expecting there? You made a statement.
It doesn't require a response.
It is a statement that contradicts your soft view of Hamas’ gentlemanly >>> rule-bound conduct of war.
What on earth are you on about? Where did I say anything whatsoever
about Hamas being "gentlemanly" and "rule-bound"?
Jesus wept…you said (quote) it is actually saying you must only fight against aggressors, you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease their aggression you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line with modern ethics wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all wars were
fought in suchan enlightened manner.(unquote)
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a lovely
Christmas.
You realise that makes no sense at all in response to what I
said, right?
It only makes sense if one understands that starting a response with the >>>>> word ’if’ undermines whatever point it is that follows.
So you undermined your own point then?
Where did I start that statement with the word ‘if’?
At the part where you wrote the letter "I" followed by the letter "f"
and a space. Amusingly, you in fact double-undermined it because that
was immediately followed by another "i" and another "f".
Ah…I see where your problem lies. There are well-known phrases and sayings, intended to convey a meaning, that you seem to be unaware of, so after all, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
To avoid the whole issue, you could replace "If you want some actual"
in my original paragraph with "While you're looking for", which wouldn't
change the meaning but would mean you couldn't reply with a misplaced
aphorism about "ifs".
On 11/07/2025 13:33, JNugent wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:08 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:02:18 +0100, The Todal wrote:
The IDF has adopted Nazi tactics. Unfortunately it is deemed
antisemitic to compare the IDF to the Nazi SS, but the comparison
is wholly justified.
Surely "anti-semitic" means "opposed without reason" ?
What if there *is* a reason ?
A fear of lions is not a phobia.
Two separate concepts are being tangentially confused there (and it's
probably a symptom of modern misunderstandings).
If you simply dislike or hate Jewish people, you are anti-semitic.
If, however, you are frightened of Jewish people, you have "semite-
phobia" (you might want to substitute a synonym for "semite").
The same applies to lions.
It is quite normal to be wary, cautious or circumspect when it comes
to lions. It's why they are kept in secure enclosures when in zoos,
etc, and why safari trips are conducted in reasonably secure vehicles.
It is quite irrational to be frightened of lions as a species.
But these days "phobic" does seem to be accepted by some ill-advised
people as meaning "hating", rather than its only correct meaning,
which is "scared by".
But of course, it's Greek and that is probably enough for some to
think it sounds good, even when mis-used.
I'm sure it's very pedantic of me to say this, but "homophobia" means
"fear of the same" rather than what we are supposed to believe it to
mean. Not fear of the same sex, not fear of homosexuals.
Phobia implies a sickness rather than a deliberate spiteful choice, as
you point out. I would be surprised if a judge used phrases such as homophobia, transphobia etc.
Incidentally, for those who believe that Lucy Connolly should never have
been prosecuted let alone imprisoned (I think Boris J is one of that
number), here's another similar case to hers.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/R-v-Haythorne-Rotherham-Disorder-Internet-11th-July-2025-.pdf
quotes
It has been my misfortune – as well as my duty – to have sentenced
most of the cases arising from the major public disorder in Rotherham
on 4th August 2024. I am extremely familiar with the events and the
CCTV footage. This is the first case of its kind to come before this
Crown Court of an individual who published material on the internet
designed to stir-up racial hatred at the specific site of the hotel in Rotherham.
The relevant publication was “Go on Rotherham, burn any hotels wi
them scruffy bastards in it”. Associated to it was a link to a far right activist – who I forbear to name.
The disorder that eventuated was racist and extremely frightening for
anyone who was there. It was perpetrated by an ignorant and
extremely violent mob.
The defendant undoubtedly suffers from a form of depression which is
not amenable to treatment. It is a mental disorder which affected his culpability up to a point, and which served to reduce the sentence.
[15 months imprisonment]
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 13:33:30 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 11/07/2025 11:08 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Two separate concepts are being tangentially confused there (and it's
probably a symptom of modern misunderstandings).
If you simply dislike or hate Jewish people, you are anti-semitic.
What is it called when you hate Semites then ?
As a matter of interest, what does the minister suggest will be the status of people living in the West Bank, or at least non-Jewish people? Will they be stateless people, untermenschen not counting as human, illegal immigrants in their own country? Or perhaps slave labour? I think we should be told. I somehow doubt they will be granted Israeli citizenship.
Phobia implies a sickness rather than a deliberate spiteful choice, as
you point out. I would be surprised if a judge used phrases such as homophobia, transphobia etc.
On 11/07/2025 04:28 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ ... ]
As a matter of interest, what does the minister suggest will be the status of
people living in the West Bank, or at least non-Jewish people? Will they be >> stateless people, untermenschen not counting as human, illegal immigrants in >> their own country? Or perhaps slave labour? I think we should be told. I
somehow doubt they will be granted Israeli citizenship.
Israel has many non-Jewish citizens, doesn't it? Aren't a significant
number of those non-Jews Muslims and presumably descended from the
people who were already there when the United Nations recognised the territory as Israel?
Some of them will be old enough to have lived during that late 1940s period.
On 11 Jul 2025 at 19:36:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 04:28 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ ... ]
As a matter of interest, what does the minister suggest will be the status of
people living in the West Bank, or at least non-Jewish people? Will they be >>> stateless people, untermenschen not counting as human, illegal immigrants in
their own country? Or perhaps slave labour? I think we should be told. I >>> somehow doubt they will be granted Israeli citizenship.
Israel has many non-Jewish citizens, doesn't it? Aren't a significant
number of those non-Jews Muslims and presumably descended from the
people who were already there when the United Nations recognised the
territory as Israel?
Some of them will be old enough to have lived during that late 1940s period.
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Phobia implies a sickness rather than a deliberate spiteful choice, as
you point out. I would be surprised if a judge used phrases such as
homophobia, transphobia etc.
Prepare to be surprised:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-Edwards-sentencing-250322.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/R-v-Ashley-Podsiad-Sharp.pdf
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/34.html https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/37.html https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/31.html https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/72.html
On 11 Jul 2025 at 19:36:35 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 04:28 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ ... ]
As a matter of interest, what does the minister suggest will be the status of
people living in the West Bank, or at least non-Jewish people? Will they be >>> stateless people, untermenschen not counting as human, illegal immigrants in
their own country? Or perhaps slave labour? I think we should be told. I >>> somehow doubt they will be granted Israeli citizenship.
Israel has many non-Jewish citizens, doesn't it? Aren't a significant
number of those non-Jews Muslims and presumably descended from the
people who were already there when the United Nations recognised the
territory as Israel?
Some of them will be old enough to have lived during that late 1940s period.
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
On 11/07/2025 20:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Phobia implies a sickness rather than a deliberate spiteful choice, as
you point out. I would be surprised if a judge used phrases such as
homophobia, transphobia etc.
Prepare to be surprised:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-Edwards-sentencing-250322.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/R-v-Ashley-Podsiad-Sharp.pdf
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/34.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/37.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/31.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/72.html
Thank you for surprising me.
Evidently judges now lack the Latin and the Greek, and resort to demotic language. I suppose far too many of them now come from state schools
rather than the nation's great public schools.
I would like to see any case where terms like homophobia and transphobia
are judicially defined rather than used casually to describe events.
Another nonsense word has been invented: biphobia.
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 20:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Phobia implies a sickness rather than a deliberate spiteful choice, as >>>> you point out. I would be surprised if a judge used phrases such as
homophobia, transphobia etc.
Prepare to be surprised:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-Edwards-sentencing-250322.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/R-v-Ashley-Podsiad-Sharp.pdf
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/34.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/37.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/31.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/72.html
Thank you for surprising me.
Evidently judges now lack the Latin and the Greek, and resort to demotic
language. I suppose far too many of them now come from state schools
rather than the nation's great public schools.
I would like to see any case where terms like homophobia and transphobia
are judicially defined rather than used casually to describe events.
Another nonsense word has been invented: biphobia.
That one really isn't nonsense either. And obviously, it doesn't mean
"fear of two".
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that >> they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other legal
provision.
On 11/07/2025 09:26, Spike wrote:
Since you raise the issue of the rules of war, which ones are Hamas
following?
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real
and present threat of genocide.
On 10th June 1944 a Nazi SS division arrived at the village of Oradour-Sure-Glane, and massacred 643 civilians. The justification,
for the Nazis, was that the French Resistance wasn't following the
rules of war and therefore it was reasonable to punish ordinary
civilians.
The IDF has adopted Nazi tactics. Unfortunately it is deemed
antisemitic to compare the IDF to the Nazi SS, but the comparison is
wholly justified.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mddm3gFmlopU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other legal
provision.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two
abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
On 12/07/2025 01:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 20:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Phobia implies a sickness rather than a deliberate spiteful choice, as >>>>> you point out. I would be surprised if a judge used phrases such as
homophobia, transphobia etc.
Prepare to be surprised:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-Edwards-sentencing-250322.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/R-v-Ashley-Podsiad-Sharp.pdf
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/34.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/37.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/31.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/72.html
Thank you for surprising me.
Evidently judges now lack the Latin and the Greek, and resort to demotic >>> language. I suppose far too many of them now come from state schools
rather than the nation's great public schools.
I would like to see any case where terms like homophobia and transphobia >>> are judicially defined rather than used casually to describe events.
Another nonsense word has been invented: biphobia.
That one really isn't nonsense either. And obviously, it doesn't mean
"fear of two".
So what does it mean? Dislike of people whose sexual preferences are
usually known only to themselves? If a bisexual person offers to have
sex with you at what point is it biphobia to refuse? The people
brandishing the banners probably get to define these terms.
And why not create some more neologisms for the morons to use?
Fartphobia. Burgerphobia. Mankiniphobia. Disabilityphobia.
And why not create some more neologisms for the morons to use?
Fartphobia. Burgerphobia. Mankiniphobia. Disabilityphobia.
On 12/07/2025 01:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 20:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Phobia implies a sickness rather than a deliberate spiteful
choice, as you point out. I would be surprised if a judge used
phrases such as homophobia, transphobia etc.
Prepare to be surprised:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-
Edwards-sentencing-250322.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/R-v-
Ashley-Podsiad-Sharp.pdf
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/34.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/37.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/31.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/72.html
Thank you for surprising me.
Evidently judges now lack the Latin and the Greek, and resort to
demotic language. I suppose far too many of them now come from
state schools rather than the nation's great public schools.
I would like to see any case where terms like homophobia and
transphobia are judicially defined rather than used casually to
describe events.
Another nonsense word has been invented: biphobia.
That one really isn't nonsense either. And obviously, it doesn't
mean "fear of two".
So what does it mean? Dislike of people whose sexual preferences are
usually known only to themselves? If a bisexual person offers to have
sex with you at what point is it biphobia to refuse? The people
brandishing the banners probably get to define these terms.
And why not create some more neologisms for the morons to use?
Fartphobia. Burgerphobia. Mankiniphobia. Disabilityphobia.
And why not create some more neologisms for the morons to use? Fartphobia. Burgerphobia. Mankiniphobia. Disabilityphobia.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 11:45:34 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
And why not create some more neologisms for the morons to use?
Fartphobia. Burgerphobia. Mankiniphobia. Disabilityphobia.
I would imagine that all of these exist.
Agree with it or not, the suffix "-phobia" has evolved to mean an irrational dislike of something rather than merely an irrational fear of it. But "phobia" is a made-up word anyway, it was coined in the late 18th century as a medical term meaning an irrational fear based on the Greek "phobos", meaning fear. The Greek etymology doesn't include any concept of irrationality, though. If you see someone running wards you brandishing a knife then the emotion you will experience is phobos, but it is not a
phobia. It is entirely rational to fear a potential assassin.
Modern colloquial usage has focussed on the irrationality inherent in a phobia but emphasised aversion rather than fear as the emotional response. That takes it even further away from the Greek roots of the word, but it's not inconsistent with the way that language evolves. "Phobos" originally meant "flight" in classical Greek, it evolved to mean "fear" in the sense of "something that makes you want to run away".
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its fightersThat's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate military targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli propaganda department.
mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they also set themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ... all making civilians into legitimate military targets under the Geneva Convention.
On 12/07/2025 01:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 20:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Phobia implies a sickness rather than a deliberate spiteful choice, as >>>>> you point out. I would be surprised if a judge used phrases such as
homophobia, transphobia etc.
Prepare to be surprised:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-Edwards-sentencing-250322.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/R-v-Ashley-Podsiad-Sharp.pdf
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/34.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/37.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/31.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/72.html
Thank you for surprising me.
Evidently judges now lack the Latin and the Greek, and resort to demotic >>> language. I suppose far too many of them now come from state schools
rather than the nation's great public schools.
I would like to see any case where terms like homophobia and transphobia >>> are judicially defined rather than used casually to describe events.
Another nonsense word has been invented: biphobia.
That one really isn't nonsense either. And obviously, it doesn't mean
"fear of two".
So what does it mean? Dislike of people whose sexual preferences are
usually known only to themselves?
If a bisexual person offers to have sex with you at what point is it
biphobia to refuse?
The people brandishing the banners probably get to define these terms.
And why not create some more neologisms for the morons to use?
Fartphobia. Burgerphobia. Mankiniphobia. Disabilityphobia.
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mddm3gFmlopU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other >>> legal
provision.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two
abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
On 2025-07-12, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 01:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 20:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Phobia implies a sickness rather than a deliberate spiteful choice, as >>>>>> you point out. I would be surprised if a judge used phrases such as >>>>>> homophobia, transphobia etc.
Prepare to be surprised:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-Edwards-sentencing-250322.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/R-v-Ashley-Podsiad-Sharp.pdf
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/34.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/37.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/31.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/72.html
Thank you for surprising me.
Evidently judges now lack the Latin and the Greek, and resort to demotic >>>> language. I suppose far too many of them now come from state schools
rather than the nation's great public schools.
I would like to see any case where terms like homophobia and transphobia >>>> are judicially defined rather than used casually to describe events.
Another nonsense word has been invented: biphobia.
That one really isn't nonsense either. And obviously, it doesn't mean
"fear of two".
So what does it mean? Dislike of people whose sexual preferences are
usually known only to themselves?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Biphobia is prejudice against bisexual people.
If a bisexual person offers to have sex with you at what point is it
biphobia to refuse?
Obviously it isn't, generally speaking. Just like a pub doesn't need
to give any reason to kick someone out, nobody needs to give a reason
not to sleep with someone.
The people brandishing the banners probably get to define these terms.
And why not create some more neologisms for the morons to use?
Fartphobia. Burgerphobia. Mankiniphobia. Disabilityphobia.
The first three are called "flatulophobia", "carnophobia", and
"gymnophobia" respectively, and are actual phobias in the medical
sense, i.e. fears.
The last one is called "ableism" if it is a prejudice. If it's
an actual fear then there isn't a generalised word because there
is no such generalised phobia (hypochondria, perhaps?), but there
are specific terms such as "apotemnophobia" which is a fear of
amputees (or of losing your own limbs).
On 12/07/2025 01:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 20:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Phobia implies a sickness rather than a deliberate spiteful choice, as >>>>> you point out. I would be surprised if a judge used phrases such as
homophobia, transphobia etc.
Prepare to be surprised:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-Edwards-
sentencing-250322.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/R-v-Ashley-
Podsiad-Sharp.pdf
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/34.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/37.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/31.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/72.html
Thank you for surprising me.
Evidently judges now lack the Latin and the Greek, and resort to demotic >>> language. I suppose far too many of them now come from state schools
rather than the nation's great public schools.
I would like to see any case where terms like homophobia and transphobia >>> are judicially defined rather than used casually to describe events.
Another nonsense word has been invented: biphobia.
That one really isn't nonsense either. And obviously, it doesn't mean
"fear of two".
So what does it mean? Dislike of people whose sexual preferences are usually known only to themselves? If a bisexual person offers to have
sex with you at what point is it biphobia to refuse? The people
brandishing the banners probably get to define these terms.
And why not create some more neologisms for the morons to use?
Fartphobia. Burgerphobia. Mankiniphobia. Disabilityphobia.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other >>>> legal provision.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two
abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Do you suppose that this excerpt helps you:
Upon presenting the reformed bill, Chairman Ohana stated: "This is the law of all laws. It is the most important law in the history of the State of Israel, which says that everyone has human rights, but national rights in Israel belong only to the Jewish people. That is the founding principle on which the state was established".
The last one is called "ableism" if it is a prejudice.
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:
That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate military targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli propaganda department.
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its fighters
mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they also set
themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ... all making
civilians into legitimate military targets under the Geneva Convention.
On 12/07/2025 13:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 11:45:34 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
And why not create some more neologisms for the morons to use?
Fartphobia. Burgerphobia. Mankiniphobia. Disabilityphobia.
I would imagine that all of these exist.
Agree with it or not, the suffix "-phobia" has evolved to mean an
irrational
dislike of something rather than merely an irrational fear of it. But
"phobia" is a made-up word anyway, it was coined in the late 18th
century as
a medical term meaning an irrational fear based on the Greek "phobos",
meaning fear. The Greek etymology doesn't include any concept of
irrationality, though. If you see someone running wards you brandishing a
knife then the emotion you will experience is phobos, but it is not a
phobia. It is entirely rational to fear a potential assassin.
Modern colloquial usage has focussed on the irrationality inherent in a
phobia but emphasised aversion rather than fear as the emotional
response.
That takes it even further away from the Greek roots of the word, but
it's
not inconsistent with the way that language evolves. "Phobos" originally
meant "flight" in classical Greek, it evolved to mean "fear" in the
sense of "something that makes you want to run away".
Phobia in medical parlance implies a fear that is involuntary and harms
your quality of life. Whereas hatred and discrimination should not be categorised as a phobia.
I think we need better neologisms rather than giving people the excuse
that some of us can't help being bigots. Maybe the racists who wanted to
set fire to the migrants' hostels can argue that they were depressed, autistic, of low IQ, easily led astray. But that would be mitigation
rather than a valid defence.
I don't much like the neologism "transphobic" but I do think a word is required for hate crimes against trans people.
The problem would be in how to define it.
I would cite the example of JK Rowling. I don't think
she hates all transgender people but she probably does hate some of them
who have attacked or threatened her, and as a result of what she has
said in social media, her friends and followers have tended to display
hatred towards transgender people, if hatred is the right word to
describe remarks such as "not a woman, just a man in drag, needs
psychiatric treatment, probably a danger to all real women" etc.
On 12/07/2025 13:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Phobia in medical parlance implies a fear that is involuntary and harms
your quality of life. Whereas hatred and discrimination should not be categorised as a phobia.
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mddm3gFmlopU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other legal
provision.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two
abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
On 12/07/2025 13:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 11:45:34 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
And why not create some more neologisms for the morons to use?
Fartphobia. Burgerphobia. Mankiniphobia. Disabilityphobia.
I would imagine that all of these exist.
Agree with it or not, the suffix "-phobia" has evolved to mean an
irrational
dislike of something rather than merely an irrational fear of it. But
"phobia" is a made-up word anyway, it was coined in the late 18th
century as
a medical term meaning an irrational fear based on the Greek "phobos",
meaning fear. The Greek etymology doesn't include any concept of
irrationality, though. If you see someone running wards you brandishing a
knife then the emotion you will experience is phobos, but it is not a
phobia. It is entirely rational to fear a potential assassin.
Modern colloquial usage has focussed on the irrationality inherent in a
phobia but emphasised aversion rather than fear as the emotional
response.
That takes it even further away from the Greek roots of the word, but
it's
not inconsistent with the way that language evolves. "Phobos" originally
meant "flight" in classical Greek, it evolved to mean "fear" in the
sense of
"something that makes you want to run away".
Phobia in medical parlance implies a fear that is involuntary and harms
your quality of life. Whereas hatred and discrimination should not be categorised as a phobia.
I think we need better neologisms rather than giving people the excuse
that some of us can't help being bigots. Maybe the racists who wanted to
set fire to the migrants' hostels can argue that they were depressed, autistic, of low IQ, easily led astray. But that would be mitigation
rather than a valid defence.
I don't much like the neologism "transphobic" but I do think a word is required for hate crimes against trans people. The problem would be in
how to define it. I would cite the example of JK Rowling. I don't think
she hates all transgender people but she probably does hate some of them
who have attacked or threatened her, and as a result of what she has
said in social media, her friends and followers have tended to display
hatred towards transgender people, if hatred is the right word to
describe remarks such as "not a woman, just a man in drag, needs
psychiatric treatment, probably a danger to all real women" etc.
On 12 Jul 2025 at 13:57:23 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:
That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate military
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its fighters
mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they also set
themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ... all making
civilians into legitimate military targets under the Geneva Convention.
targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli propaganda department.
After all fighters on leave in cafes or their family home, or in hospital being treated for wounds are hardly using "human shields" in any truthful use of the term. Let alone "members of Hamas" who are civilian workers or officials and were never "fighters" at all. The suggestion that all these people nip into a land rover and do the night shift as infantrymen is one of the more outrageously stupid lies told.
On 12/07/2025 01:57 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other
legal provision.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two
abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Do you suppose that this excerpt helps you:
Upon presenting the reformed bill, Chairman Ohana stated: "This is the law of
all laws. It is the most important law in the history of the State of Israel,
which says that everyone has human rights, but national rights in Israel
belong only to the Jewish people. That is the founding principle on which the
state was established".
Of *course* it doesn't. It *can't*.
On 12/07/2025 13:54, The Todal wrote:
On 12/07/2025 13:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 11:45:34 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
And why not create some more neologisms for the morons to use?
Fartphobia. Burgerphobia. Mankiniphobia. Disabilityphobia.
I would imagine that all of these exist.
Agree with it or not, the suffix "-phobia" has evolved to mean an
irrational
dislike of something rather than merely an irrational fear of it. But
"phobia" is a made-up word anyway, it was coined in the late 18th
century as
a medical term meaning an irrational fear based on the Greek "phobos",
meaning fear. The Greek etymology doesn't include any concept of
irrationality, though. If you see someone running wards you
brandishing a
knife then the emotion you will experience is phobos, but it is not a
phobia. It is entirely rational to fear a potential assassin.
Modern colloquial usage has focussed on the irrationality inherent in a
phobia but emphasised aversion rather than fear as the emotional
response.
That takes it even further away from the Greek roots of the word, but
it's
not inconsistent with the way that language evolves. "Phobos" originally >>> meant "flight" in classical Greek, it evolved to mean "fear" in the
sense of
"something that makes you want to run away".
Phobia in medical parlance implies a fear that is involuntary and
harms your quality of life. Whereas hatred and discrimination should
not be categorised as a phobia.
I think we need better neologisms rather than giving people the excuse
that some of us can't help being bigots. Maybe the racists who wanted
to set fire to the migrants' hostels can argue that they were
depressed, autistic, of low IQ, easily led astray. But that would be
mitigation rather than a valid defence.
I don't much like the neologism "transphobic" but I do think a word is
required for hate crimes against trans people. The problem would be
in how to define it. I would cite the example of JK Rowling. I don't
think she hates all transgender people but she probably does hate some
of them who have attacked or threatened her, and as a result of what
she has said in social media, her friends and followers have tended to
display hatred towards transgender people, if hatred is the right word
to describe remarks such as "not a woman, just a man in drag, needs
psychiatric treatment, probably a danger to all real women" etc.
"Hate crime" is just a political statement that you disapprove of
another's attitude. In this case that, in practice, male and female are,
for all practical purposes immutable.
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-09, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and >>>>>> present threat of genocide.
Every part of that sentence is false. Is is a thing to be greatly
wondered about. What Israel is doing cannot possibly be considered
"defence". And there is no "real and present threat of genocide".
As I have pointed out previously, regardless of whether Hamas would
or would not commit genocide if they could, the fact is that they
can't. They don't have the power to do so.
Then ask yourself why they have this declared aim that amounts to
genocide of the Jewish people.
Again it is my understanding that this is false and they do not have any >>> such declared aim.
You clearly haven’t read either a summary of Hamas’ founding charter
or the document itself.
What does that document have to do with anything? You said they "have"
it as a declared aim, now you're referring to a document that is eight
years out of date. Top tip: google the phrase "english past tense" to
learn how to write about things that are in the past.
What response were you expecting there? You made a statement.
It doesn't require a response.
It is a statement that contradicts your soft view of Hamas’ gentlemanly >>>> rule-bound conduct of war.
What on earth are you on about? Where did I say anything whatsoever
about Hamas being "gentlemanly" and "rule-bound"?
Jesus wept…you said (quote) it is actually saying you must only fight
against aggressors, you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease >> their aggression you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line with >> modern ethics wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all wars were
fought in suchan enlightened manner.(unquote)
And when I said that, did I mention Hamas?
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a lovely
Christmas.
You realise that makes no sense at all in response to what I
said, right?
It only makes sense if one understands that starting a response with the >>>>>> word ’if’ undermines whatever point it is that follows.
So you undermined your own point then?
Where did I start that statement with the word ‘if’?
At the part where you wrote the letter "I" followed by the letter "f"
and a space. Amusingly, you in fact double-undermined it because that
was immediately followed by another "i" and another "f".
Ah…I see where your problem lies. There are well-known phrases and sayings,
intended to convey a meaning, that you seem to be unaware of, so after all, >> you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.
According to you, because it starts with "if" it can be ignored
completely without reading it. Are you now changing your mind?
I think perhaps you also ought to look into the meaning of the
"well-known phrase or saying" that you used, because you don't
seem to understand it.
To avoid the whole issue, you could replace "If you want some actual"
in my original paragraph with "While you're looking for", which wouldn't >>> change the meaning but would mean you couldn't reply with a misplaced
aphorism about "ifs".
Still no response eh?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 12 Jul 2025 at 13:57:23 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its fighters
mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they also set
themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ... all making
civilians into legitimate military targets under the Geneva Convention. >>> That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate military >>> targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli propaganda department.
After all fighters on leave in cafes or their family home, or in hospital
being treated for wounds are hardly using "human shields" in any truthful use
of the term. Let alone "members of Hamas" who are civilian workers or
officials and were never "fighters" at all. The suggestion that all these
people nip into a land rover and do the night shift as infantrymen is one of >> the more outrageously stupid lies told.
Do you have any cites for that latter claim?
Unfortunately the discovery that UNRWA employees took part in the murderous October 7th raid would tend to undermine your blanket whitewash of Hamas,
its employees, fighters, and sympathisers.
On 12/07/2025 17:21, Max Demian wrote:
On 12/07/2025 13:54, The Todal wrote:
Phobia in medical parlance implies a fear that is involuntary and
harms your quality of life. Whereas hatred and discrimination should
not be categorised as a phobia.
I think we need better neologisms rather than giving people the
excuse that some of us can't help being bigots. Maybe the racists who
wanted to set fire to the migrants' hostels can argue that they were
depressed, autistic, of low IQ, easily led astray. But that would be
mitigation rather than a valid defence.
I don't much like the neologism "transphobic" but I do think a word
is required for hate crimes against trans people. The problem would
be in how to define it. I would cite the example of JK Rowling. I
don't think she hates all transgender people but she probably does
hate some of them who have attacked or threatened her, and as a
result of what she has said in social media, her friends and
followers have tended to display hatred towards transgender people,
if hatred is the right word to describe remarks such as "not a woman,
just a man in drag, needs psychiatric treatment, probably a danger to
all real women" etc.
"Hate crime" is just a political statement that you disapprove of
another's attitude. In this case that, in practice, male and female
are, for all practical purposes immutable.
No, I think you've misunderstood. You are free to believe that male and female are immutable. You are also free to believe that those who think
you can change sex are deluded. But if you assault or intimidate or
humiliate people based on their protected characteristics, you might
then be breaking the law and committing a hate crime.
On 13/07/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
On 12/07/2025 17:21, Max Demian wrote:
On 12/07/2025 13:54, The Todal wrote:
Phobia in medical parlance implies a fear that is involuntary and
harms your quality of life. Whereas hatred and discrimination should
not be categorised as a phobia.
I think we need better neologisms rather than giving people the
excuse that some of us can't help being bigots. Maybe the racists who
wanted to set fire to the migrants' hostels can argue that they were
depressed, autistic, of low IQ, easily led astray. But that would be
mitigation rather than a valid defence.
I don't much like the neologism "transphobic" but I do think a word
is required for hate crimes against trans people. The problem would
be in how to define it. I would cite the example of JK Rowling. I
don't think she hates all transgender people but she probably does
hate some of them who have attacked or threatened her, and as a
result of what she has said in social media, her friends and
followers have tended to display hatred towards transgender people,
if hatred is the right word to describe remarks such as "not a woman,
just a man in drag, needs psychiatric treatment, probably a danger to
all real women" etc.
"Hate crime" is just a political statement that you disapprove of
another's attitude. In this case that, in practice, male and female
are, for all practical purposes immutable.
No, I think you've misunderstood. You are free to believe that male and
female are immutable. You are also free to believe that those who think
you can change sex are deluded. But if you assault or intimidate or
humiliate people based on their protected characteristics, you might
then be breaking the law and committing a hate crime.
"Hate crime" (and the appalling "non-crime hate incident") as enforced,
goes far beyond assault, intimidation or even humiliation - and why
shouldn't we humiliate people who say silly things? They represent an unacceptable restriction on free speech.
"Protected characteristics" is a misused concept.
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its fighters
mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they also set
themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ... all making
civilians into legitimate military targets under the Geneva
Convention.
That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate
military targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli propaganda department.
On 12 Jul 2025 at 13:57:23 BST, "The Todal" wrote:
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its
fighters mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they
also set themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ...
all making civilians into legitimate military targets under the
Geneva Convention.
That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate
military targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli
propaganda department.
After all fighters on leave in cafes or their family home, or in
hospital being treated for wounds are hardly using "human shields" in
any truthful use of the term. Let alone "members of Hamas" who are
civilian workers or officials and were never "fighters" at all. The suggestion that all these people nip into a land rover and do the
night shift as infantrymen is one of the more outrageously stupid
lies told.
On 13/07/2025 08:55, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 12 Jul 2025 at 13:57:23 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:After all fighters on leave in cafes or their family home, or in hospital >>> being treated for wounds are hardly using "human shields" in any truthful use
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its fighters >>>>> mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they also set
themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ... all making >>>>> civilians into legitimate military targets under the Geneva Convention. >>>> That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate military >>>> targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli propaganda department. >>>
of the term. Let alone "members of Hamas" who are civilian workers or
officials and were never "fighters" at all. The suggestion that all these >>> people nip into a land rover and do the night shift as infantrymen is one of
the more outrageously stupid lies told.
Do you have any cites for that latter claim?
Unfortunately the discovery that UNRWA employees took part in the murderous >> October 7th raid would tend to undermine your blanket whitewash of Hamas,
its employees, fighters, and sympathisers.
Unfortunately the brazen lie that UNRWA employees took part in the
murderous 7/10 attacks, and that UNRWA can no longer be trusted to
administer aid, has been a convenient excuse for Israel to impose a
famine on Gaza.
Israel has never demonstrated that UNRWA employees took part in 7/10,
and has banned all independent journalists from visiting the area and
making their own enquiries.
On 12 Jul 2025 at 13:57:23 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:
That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate military
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its fighters
mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they also set
themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ... all making
civilians into legitimate military targets under the Geneva Convention.
targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli propaganda department.
After all fighters on leave in cafes or their family home, or in hospital being treated for wounds are hardly using "human shields" in any truthful use of the term. Let alone "members of Hamas" who are civilian workers or officials and were never "fighters" at all. The suggestion that all these people nip into a land rover and do the night shift as infantrymen is one of the more outrageously stupid lies told.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdesvfFsq37U1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mddm3gFmlopU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other legal
provision.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two
abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Now let's see.
How about...If Israel is to function "as the Jews' nation-state",
as described in the above "Law", which you were so keen to hear
all about, then it's probably not a very good idea to enable large
numbers of people to vote, who are fundamentally opposed to the
very idea of a Jewish Nation State,
Something along those lines should do the trick, I'd imagine.
On 12 Jul 2025 at 14:12:25 BST, JNugent wrote:
On 12/07/2025 01:57 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other
legal provision.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two
abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Do you suppose that this excerpt helps you:
Upon presenting the reformed bill, Chairman Ohana stated: "This is the law of
all laws. It is the most important law in the history of the State of Israel,
which says that everyone has human rights, but national rights in Israel >>> belong only to the Jewish people. That is the founding principle on which the
state was established".
Of *course* it doesn't. It *can't*.
Why?
I'd guess most 'extreme' non-secular countries effectively, through law, privilege followers of the national religion.
On 12/07/2025 17:21, Max Demian wrote:>>>> in the late 18th century as a medical term meaning an irrational
On 12/07/2025 13:54, The Todal wrote:
On 12/07/2025 13:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
And why not create some more neologisms for the morons to use?
Fartphobia. Burgerphobia. Mankiniphobia. Disabilityphobia.
I would imagine that all of these exist.
Agree with it or not, the suffix "-phobia" has evolved to mean an
irrational dislike of something rather than merely an irrational
fear of it. But "phobia" is a made-up word anyway, it was coined
fear based on the Greek "phobos", meaning fear. The Greek
etymology doesn't include any concept of irrationality, though.
If you see someone running wards you brandishing a knife then
the emotion you will experience is phobos, but it is not a phobia.
It is entirely rational to fear a potential assassin.
Modern colloquial usage has focussed on the irrationality inherent in a >>>> phobia but emphasised aversion rather than fear as the emotional
response.
That takes it even further away from the Greek roots of the word,
but it's not inconsistent with the way that language evolves. "Phobos" >>>> originally meant "flight" in classical Greek, it evolved to mean "fear" >>>> in the sense of "something that makes you want to run away".
Phobia in medical parlance implies a fear that is involuntary and
harms your quality of life. Whereas hatred and discrimination should
not be categorised as a phobia.
I think we need better neologisms rather than giving people the
excuse that some of us can't help being bigots. Maybe the racists who
wanted to set fire to the migrants' hostels can argue that they were
depressed, autistic, of low IQ, easily led astray. But that would be
mitigation rather than a valid defence.
I don't much like the neologism "transphobic" but I do think a word
is required for hate crimes against trans people. The problem would
be in how to define it. I would cite the example of JK Rowling. I
don't think she hates all transgender people but she probably does
hate some of them who have attacked or threatened her, and as a
result of what she has said in social media, her friends and
followers have tended to display hatred towards transgender people,
if hatred is the right word to describe remarks such as "not a woman,
just a man in drag, needs psychiatric treatment, probably a danger to
all real women" etc.
"Hate crime" is just a political statement that you disapprove of
another's attitude. In this case that, in practice, male and female
are, for all practical purposes immutable.
No, I think you've misunderstood. You are free to believe that male and female are immutable. You are also free to believe that those who think
you can change sex are deluded. But if you assault or intimidate or
humiliate people based on their protected characteristics, you might
then be breaking the law and committing a hate crime.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-09, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and >>>>>>> present threat of genocide.
Every part of that sentence is false. Is is a thing to be greatly
wondered about. What Israel is doing cannot possibly be considered >>>>>> "defence". And there is no "real and present threat of genocide".
As I have pointed out previously, regardless of whether Hamas would >>>>>> or would not commit genocide if they could, the fact is that they
can't. They don't have the power to do so.
Then ask yourself why they have this declared aim that amounts to
genocide of the Jewish people.
Again it is my understanding that this is false and they do not have any >>>> such declared aim.
You clearly haven’t read either a summary of Hamas’ founding charter >>> or the document itself.
What does that document have to do with anything? You said they "have"
it as a declared aim, now you're referring to a document that is eight
years out of date. Top tip: google the phrase "english past tense" to
learn how to write about things that are in the past.
The founding charter of Hamas is just that. It may have changed later, but does reveal the fundamentalist-religious approach of the organisation. Feel free to quote your evidence regarding your view of Hamas’ current published doctrine.
What response were you expecting there? You made a statement.
It doesn't require a response.
It is a statement that contradicts your soft view of Hamas’ gentlemanly >>>>> rule-bound conduct of war.
What on earth are you on about? Where did I say anything whatsoever
about Hamas being "gentlemanly" and "rule-bound"?
Jesus wept…you said (quote) it is actually saying you must only fight
against aggressors, you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease >>> their aggression you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line with >>> modern ethics wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all wars were
fought in suchan enlightened manner.(unquote)
And when I said that, did I mention Hamas?
You seem to be confused about whether Hamas is motivated by Islamic tenets. Are they Islamic or are they not?
In simple terms: Islam is a religion; Hamas is an organisation based on Islamic principles; bitter experience has shown that they do not
necessarily follow them, especially those related to the conduct of war, which you quoted earlier.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a lovely >>>>>>>>> Christmas.
You realise that makes no sense at all in response to what I
said, right?
It only makes sense if one understands that starting a response with the
word ’if’ undermines whatever point it is that follows.
So you undermined your own point then?
Where did I start that statement with the word ‘if’?
At the part where you wrote the letter "I" followed by the letter "f"
and a space. Amusingly, you in fact double-undermined it because that
was immediately followed by another "i" and another "f".
Ah…I see where your problem lies. There are well-known phrases and
sayings, intended to convey a meaning, that you seem to be unaware
of, so after all, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make
him drink.
According to you, because it starts with "if" it can be ignored
completely without reading it. Are you now changing your mind?
You started your relevant response with the word ‘if’, which necessarily means that whatever follows is hypothetical. This is irrelevant to a fact-based discussion, and so can safely be ignored.
I think perhaps you also ought to look into the meaning of the
"well-known phrase or saying" that you used, because you don't
seem to understand it.
I will agree that one of us doesn’t understand it.
To avoid the whole issue, you could replace "If you want some actual"
in my original paragraph with "While you're looking for", which wouldn't >>>> change the meaning but would mean you couldn't reply with a misplaced
aphorism about "ifs".
Still no response eh?
That has already been disposed of; is there any reason you are continuing
to try and win some point or other?
On 12/07/2025 13:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-12, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 01:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 20:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Phobia implies a sickness rather than a deliberate spiteful choice, as >>>>>>> you point out. I would be surprised if a judge used phrases such as >>>>>>> homophobia, transphobia etc.
Prepare to be surprised:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-Edwards-sentencing-250322.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/R-v-Ashley-Podsiad-Sharp.pdf
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/34.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/37.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/31.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/72.html
Thank you for surprising me.
Evidently judges now lack the Latin and the Greek, and resort to demotic >>>>> language. I suppose far too many of them now come from state schools >>>>> rather than the nation's great public schools.
I would like to see any case where terms like homophobia and transphobia >>>>> are judicially defined rather than used casually to describe events. >>>>>
Another nonsense word has been invented: biphobia.
That one really isn't nonsense either. And obviously, it doesn't mean
"fear of two".
So what does it mean? Dislike of people whose sexual preferences are
usually known only to themselves?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Biphobia is prejudice against
bisexual people.
How could that prejudice ever be manifested?
Bisexual people do not normally stand out from the crowd, or at any
rate do not need to stand out from the crowd.
On 2025-07-13, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
You seem to be confused about whether Hamas is motivated by Islamic tenets. >> Are they Islamic or are they not?
Is the Ku Klux Klan Christian or is it not?
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 13/07/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
On 12/07/2025 17:21, Max Demian wrote:
On 12/07/2025 13:54, The Todal wrote:
Phobia in medical parlance implies a fear that is involuntary and
harms your quality of life. Whereas hatred and discrimination should >>>>> not be categorised as a phobia.
I think we need better neologisms rather than giving people the
excuse that some of us can't help being bigots. Maybe the racists who >>>>> wanted to set fire to the migrants' hostels can argue that they were >>>>> depressed, autistic, of low IQ, easily led astray. But that would be >>>>> mitigation rather than a valid defence.
I don't much like the neologism "transphobic" but I do think a word
is required for hate crimes against trans people. The problem would >>>>> be in how to define it. I would cite the example of JK Rowling. I
don't think she hates all transgender people but she probably does
hate some of them who have attacked or threatened her, and as a
result of what she has said in social media, her friends and
followers have tended to display hatred towards transgender people,
if hatred is the right word to describe remarks such as "not a woman, >>>>> just a man in drag, needs psychiatric treatment, probably a danger to >>>>> all real women" etc.
"Hate crime" is just a political statement that you disapprove of
another's attitude. In this case that, in practice, male and female
are, for all practical purposes immutable.
No, I think you've misunderstood. You are free to believe that male and
female are immutable. You are also free to believe that those who think
you can change sex are deluded. But if you assault or intimidate or
humiliate people based on their protected characteristics, you might
then be breaking the law and committing a hate crime.
"Hate crime" (and the appalling "non-crime hate incident") as enforced,
goes far beyond assault, intimidation or even humiliation - and why
shouldn't we humiliate people who say silly things? They represent an
unacceptable restriction on free speech.
"Protected characteristics" is a misused concept.
https://www.doyleclayton.co.uk/resources/news/allison-bailey-wins-first-ever-gender-critical-judgment-in-the-supply-of-goods-and-services/
Includes a link to the judgement. It seems that having “gender critical” beliefs is also a protected characteristic and you must not discriminate against people on the grounds of their having such beliefs.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 13/07/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
On 12/07/2025 17:21, Max Demian wrote:
On 12/07/2025 13:54, The Todal wrote:
Phobia in medical parlance implies a fear that is involuntary and
harms your quality of life. Whereas hatred and discrimination should >>>>> not be categorised as a phobia.
I think we need better neologisms rather than giving people the
excuse that some of us can't help being bigots. Maybe the racists who >>>>> wanted to set fire to the migrants' hostels can argue that they were >>>>> depressed, autistic, of low IQ, easily led astray. But that would be >>>>> mitigation rather than a valid defence.
I don't much like the neologism "transphobic" but I do think a word
is required for hate crimes against trans people. The problem would >>>>> be in how to define it. I would cite the example of JK Rowling. I
don't think she hates all transgender people but she probably does
hate some of them who have attacked or threatened her, and as a
result of what she has said in social media, her friends and
followers have tended to display hatred towards transgender people,
if hatred is the right word to describe remarks such as "not a woman, >>>>> just a man in drag, needs psychiatric treatment, probably a danger to >>>>> all real women" etc.
"Hate crime" is just a political statement that you disapprove of
another's attitude. In this case that, in practice, male and female
are, for all practical purposes immutable.
No, I think you've misunderstood. You are free to believe that male and
female are immutable. You are also free to believe that those who think
you can change sex are deluded. But if you assault or intimidate or
humiliate people based on their protected characteristics, you might
then be breaking the law and committing a hate crime.
"Hate crime" (and the appalling "non-crime hate incident") as enforced,
goes far beyond assault, intimidation or even humiliation - and why
shouldn't we humiliate people who say silly things? They represent an
unacceptable restriction on free speech.
"Protected characteristics" is a misused concept.
https://www.doyleclayton.co.uk/resources/news/allison-bailey-wins-first-ever-gender-critical-judgment-in-the-supply-of-goods-and-services/
Includes a link to the judgement. It seems that having “gender critical” beliefs is also a protected characteristic and you must not discriminate against people on the grounds of their having such beliefs.
Calling people who hold such beliefs ’bigots’ seems to count as evidence that an action against them could be discrimination of that kind.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/07/2025 08:55, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 12 Jul 2025 at 13:57:23 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:After all fighters on leave in cafes or their family home, or in hospital >>>> being treated for wounds are hardly using "human shields" in any truthful use
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its fighters >>>>>> mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they also set >>>>>> themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ... all making >>>>>> civilians into legitimate military targets under the Geneva Convention. >>>>> That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate military >>>>> targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli propaganda department. >>>>
of the term. Let alone "members of Hamas" who are civilian workers or
officials and were never "fighters" at all. The suggestion that all these >>>> people nip into a land rover and do the night shift as infantrymen is one of
the more outrageously stupid lies told.
Do you have any cites for that latter claim?
Unfortunately the discovery that UNRWA employees took part in the murderous >>> October 7th raid would tend to undermine your blanket whitewash of Hamas, >>> its employees, fighters, and sympathisers.
Unfortunately the brazen lie that UNRWA employees took part in the
murderous 7/10 attacks, and that UNRWA can no longer be trusted to
administer aid, has been a convenient excuse for Israel to impose a
famine on Gaza.
Israel has never demonstrated that UNRWA employees took part in 7/10,
and has banned all independent journalists from visiting the area and
making their own enquiries.
The lily-livered BBC toned down the reporting of UNRWA employees taking
part in the October 7th attack, but the action reported to be taken by the
UN is clear enough:
5 August 2024
Nine staff members at the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, may
have been involved in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, the United Nations says.
All nine would have their employment terminated, said UN deputy
spokesperson Farhan Haq.
He said the UN had completed an investigation following allegations by
Israel that UNRWA staff were involved.
About 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken back to Gaza as hostages in the unprecedented assault last autumn.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvyyz8461yo>
On 2025-07-12, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 13:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-12, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 01:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 20:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Phobia implies a sickness rather than a deliberate spiteful choice, as >>>>>>>> you point out. I would be surprised if a judge used phrases such as >>>>>>>> homophobia, transphobia etc.
Prepare to be surprised:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-Edwards-sentencing-250322.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/R-v-Ashley-Podsiad-Sharp.pdf
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/34.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/37.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/31.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/72.html
Thank you for surprising me.
Evidently judges now lack the Latin and the Greek, and resort to demotic >>>>>> language. I suppose far too many of them now come from state schools >>>>>> rather than the nation's great public schools.
I would like to see any case where terms like homophobia and transphobia >>>>>> are judicially defined rather than used casually to describe events. >>>>>>
Another nonsense word has been invented: biphobia.
That one really isn't nonsense either. And obviously, it doesn't mean >>>>> "fear of two".
So what does it mean? Dislike of people whose sexual preferences are
usually known only to themselves?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Biphobia is prejudice against
bisexual people.
How could that prejudice ever be manifested?
Bisexual people do not normally stand out from the crowd, or at any
rate do not need to stand out from the crowd.
A strange question. It presupposes that nobody has ever known another
person to be bisexual, and possibly that bisexual people should hide
who they are at all times in order to avoid discrimination.
On 2025-07-13, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-09, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and >>>>>>>> present threat of genocide.
Every part of that sentence is false. Is is a thing to be greatly >>>>>>> wondered about. What Israel is doing cannot possibly be considered >>>>>>> "defence". And there is no "real and present threat of genocide". >>>>>>> As I have pointed out previously, regardless of whether Hamas would >>>>>>> or would not commit genocide if they could, the fact is that they >>>>>>> can't. They don't have the power to do so.
Then ask yourself why they have this declared aim that amounts to
genocide of the Jewish people.
Again it is my understanding that this is false and they do not have any >>>>> such declared aim.
You clearly haven’t read either a summary of Hamas’ founding charter >>>> or the document itself.
What does that document have to do with anything? You said they "have"
it as a declared aim, now you're referring to a document that is eight
years out of date. Top tip: google the phrase "english past tense" to
learn how to write about things that are in the past.
The founding charter of Hamas is just that. It may have changed later, but >> does reveal the fundamentalist-religious approach of the organisation. Feel >> free to quote your evidence regarding your view of Hamas’ current published
doctrine.
I have no view of Hamas' current published doctrine. You are the one
making a claim, feel free to back it up with evidence - or to say that
you are abandoning your previous claim and moving to a new one.
What response were you expecting there? You made a statement.
It doesn't require a response.
It is a statement that contradicts your soft view of Hamas’ gentlemanly
rule-bound conduct of war.
What on earth are you on about? Where did I say anything whatsoever
about Hamas being "gentlemanly" and "rule-bound"?
Jesus wept…you said (quote) it is actually saying you must only fight >>>> against aggressors, you must adhere to the rules of war, and if they cease >>>> their aggression you must stop fighting them. Sounds entirely in line with >>>> modern ethics wouldn't you say? One could only wish that all wars were >>>> fought in suchan enlightened manner.(unquote)
And when I said that, did I mention Hamas?
You seem to be confused about whether Hamas is motivated by Islamic tenets. >> Are they Islamic or are they not?
Is the Ku Klux Klan Christian or is it not?
In simple terms: Islam is a religion; Hamas is an organisation based on
Islamic principles; bitter experience has shown that they do not
necessarily follow them, especially those related to the conduct of war,
which you quoted earlier.
Ok, so when you've finished having the argument with yourself that that sentence represents, please do come back to us with whatever it is that you've decided you're trying to say.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a lovely >>>>>>>>>> Christmas.
You realise that makes no sense at all in response to what I >>>>>>>>> said, right?
It only makes sense if one understands that starting a response with the
word ’if’ undermines whatever point it is that follows.
So you undermined your own point then?
Where did I start that statement with the word ‘if’?
At the part where you wrote the letter "I" followed by the letter "f" >>>>> and a space. Amusingly, you in fact double-undermined it because that >>>>> was immediately followed by another "i" and another "f".
Ah…I see where your problem lies. There are well-known phrases and
sayings, intended to convey a meaning, that you seem to be unaware
of, so after all, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make
him drink.
According to you, because it starts with "if" it can be ignored
completely without reading it. Are you now changing your mind?
You started your relevant response with the word ‘if’, which necessarily >> means that whatever follows is hypothetical. This is irrelevant to a
fact-based discussion, and so can safely be ignored.
I think you need to go and study basic logic and English comprehension.
I think perhaps you also ought to look into the meaning of the
"well-known phrase or saying" that you used, because you don't
seem to understand it.
I will agree that one of us doesn’t understand it.
To avoid the whole issue, you could replace "If you want some actual" >>>>> in my original paragraph with "While you're looking for", which wouldn't >>>>> change the meaning but would mean you couldn't reply with a misplaced >>>>> aphorism about "ifs".
Still no response eh?
That has already been disposed of; is there any reason you are continuing
to try and win some point or other?
How can it have been "disposed of" when you have not responded to it in
any way?
On 13/07/2025 12:56, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/07/2025 08:55, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its fighters >>>>>>> mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they also set >>>>>>> themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ... all making >>>>>>> civilians into legitimate military targets under the Geneva
Convention.
That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate
military targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli propaganda >>>>>> department.
After all fighters on leave in cafes or their family home, or in
hospital being treated for wounds are hardly using "human shields"
in any truthful use of the term. Let alone "members of Hamas" who
are civilian workers or officials and were never "fighters" at all.
The suggestion that all these people nip into a land rover and do
the night shift as infantrymen is one of the more outrageously
stupid lies told.
Do you have any cites for that latter claim?
Unfortunately the discovery that UNRWA employees took part in the
murderous October 7th raid would tend to undermine your blanket
whitewash of Hamas, its employees, fighters, and sympathisers.
Unfortunately the brazen lie that UNRWA employees took part in the
murderous 7/10 attacks, and that UNRWA can no longer be trusted to
administer aid, has been a convenient excuse for Israel to impose a
famine on Gaza.
Israel has never demonstrated that UNRWA employees took part in 7/10,
and has banned all independent journalists from visiting the area and
making their own enquiries.
The lily-livered BBC toned down the reporting of UNRWA employees taking
part in the October 7th attack, but the action reported to be taken by
the UN is clear enough:
5 August 2024
Nine staff members at the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, may
have been involved in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, the
United Nations says.
All nine would have their employment terminated, said UN deputy
spokesperson Farhan Haq.
He said the UN had completed an investigation following allegations by
Israel that UNRWA staff were involved.
About 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken back to Gaza as
hostages in the unprecedented assault last autumn.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvyyz8461yo>
The lily-livered BBC has regularly sided with the Israeli propaganda department, and is no longer a source of objective truth, if it ever was.
If you want truth, go to the source. Unfortunately the Israeli
government has lied to you. It has made false, unsubstantiated
allegations and when UNWRA has protected its reputation by suspending or sacking individuals, this is interpreted by the morons as proof that
Israel has told the truth.
On 13:57 12 Jul 2025, The Todal said:
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its fighters
mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they also set
themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ... all making
civilians into legitimate military targets under the Geneva
Convention.
That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate
military targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli propaganda
department.
Who is making your claim that civilians in Gaza are legitimate military targets?
On the other hand, the Geneva Convention says civilians (in places like hospitals) lose their protection if Hamas conceals itself there and uses
it for military purposes.
"Discontinuance of protection of medical establishments and units"
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-21
Art.51 broadens this principle to locations other than hospitals. A
detailed discussion here:
<https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/HJS-Hamass- Human-Shield-Strategy-in-Gaza-Report-WEB.pdf>
On 13/07/2025 16:42, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-12, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 13:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-12, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 01:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 11/07/2025 20:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-11, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Phobia implies a sickness rather than a deliberate spiteful
choice, as
you point out. I would be surprised if a judge used phrases
such as
homophobia, transphobia etc.
Prepare to be surprised:
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/R-v-Edwards-sentencing-250322.pdf
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/R-v-Ashley-Podsiad-Sharp.pdf
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2003/34.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2007/37.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2010/31.html
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2017/72.html
Thank you for surprising me.
Evidently judges now lack the Latin and the Greek, and resort to >>>>>>> demotic
language. I suppose far too many of them now come from state schools >>>>>>> rather than the nation's great public schools.
I would like to see any case where terms like homophobia and
transphobia
are judicially defined rather than used casually to describe events. >>>>>>>
Another nonsense word has been invented: biphobia.
That one really isn't nonsense either. And obviously, it doesn't mean >>>>>> "fear of two".
So what does it mean? Dislike of people whose sexual preferences are >>>>> usually known only to themselves?
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Biphobia is prejudice against >>>> bisexual people.
How could that prejudice ever be manifested?
Bisexual people do not normally stand out from the crowd, or at any
rate do not need to stand out from the crowd.
A strange question. It presupposes that nobody has ever known another
person to be bisexual, and possibly that bisexual people should hide
who they are at all times in order to avoid discrimination.
Well, my question was, how could that prejudice ever be manifested?
Some bigoted people react with hostility if they see two people of the
same sex embracing or kissing. But young heterosexual women sometimes
embrace each other.
If anyone chooses to share information about their sex lives this risks
being inappropriate. When a fellow employee of mine decided to chat with
a client about his recent visit to a gay club and the partners whom he
had picked up, that caused the client to be rather disgusted and to
request that a different person should handle that client's business.
But I don't think that could reasonably be considered "homophobia" or prejudice against gay people.
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought to be within close friendship circles only.
On 14/07/2025 11:10 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:56, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/07/2025 08:55, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its
fighters
mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they also set >>>>>>>> themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ... all
making
civilians into legitimate military targets under the Geneva
Convention.
That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate
military targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli
propaganda
department.
After all fighters on leave in cafes or their family home, or in
hospital being treated for wounds are hardly using "human shields" >>>>>> in any truthful use of the term. Let alone "members of Hamas" who
are civilian workers or officials and were never "fighters" at all. >>>>>> The suggestion that all these people nip into a land rover and do
the night shift as infantrymen is one of the more outrageously
stupid lies told.
Do you have any cites for that latter claim?
Unfortunately the discovery that UNRWA employees took part in the
murderous October 7th raid would tend to undermine your blanket
whitewash of Hamas, its employees, fighters, and sympathisers.
Unfortunately the brazen lie that UNRWA employees took part in the
murderous 7/10 attacks, and that UNRWA can no longer be trusted to
administer aid, has been a convenient excuse for Israel to impose a
famine on Gaza.
Israel has never demonstrated that UNRWA employees took part in 7/10,
and has banned all independent journalists from visiting the area and
making their own enquiries.
The lily-livered BBC toned down the reporting of UNRWA employees taking
part in the October 7th attack, but the action reported to be taken by
the UN is clear enough:
5 August 2024
Nine staff members at the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, may >>> have been involved in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, the
United Nations says.
All nine would have their employment terminated, said UN deputy
spokesperson Farhan Haq.
He said the UN had completed an investigation following allegations by
Israel that UNRWA staff were involved.
About 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken back to Gaza as >>> hostages in the unprecedented assault last autumn.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvyyz8461yo>
Isn't it odd that when the United Nations publishes "findings" attacking
a conservative government or policy, it is received by all the usual
suspects as Holy Writ, but when the United Nations publishes something critical of a terrorist organisation, that is quickly condemned as a
blatant lie?
What could possibly explain that, I wonder?
The lily-livered BBC has regularly sided with the Israeli propaganda
department, and is no longer a source of objective truth, if it ever was.
If you want truth, go to the source. Unfortunately the Israeli
government has lied to you. It has made false, unsubstantiated
allegations and when UNWRA has protected its reputation by suspending or
sacking individuals, this is interpreted by the morons as proof that
Israel has told the truth.
Were they sacked for doing nothing wrong, then?
On 14/07/2025 11:27, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2025 11:10 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:56, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/07/2025 08:55, Spike wrote:
Unfortunately the discovery that UNRWA employees took part in the
murderous October 7th raid would tend to undermine your blanket
whitewash of Hamas, its employees, fighters, and sympathisers.
Unfortunately the brazen lie that UNRWA employees took part in the
murderous 7/10 attacks, and that UNRWA can no longer be trusted to
administer aid, has been a convenient excuse for Israel to impose a
famine on Gaza.
Israel has never demonstrated that UNRWA employees took part in 7/10, >>>>> and has banned all independent journalists from visiting the area and >>>>> making their own enquiries.
The lily-livered BBC toned down the reporting of UNRWA employees taking >>>> part in the October 7th attack, but the action reported to be taken by >>>> the UN is clear enough:
5 August 2024
Nine staff members at the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA,
may have been involved in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, the >>>> United Nations says.
All nine would have their employment terminated, said UN deputy
spokesperson Farhan Haq.
He said the UN had completed an investigation following allegations by >>>> Israel that UNRWA staff were involved.
About 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken back to
Gaza as hostages in the unprecedented assault last autumn.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvyyz8461yo>
Isn't it odd that when the United Nations publishes "findings"
attacking a conservative government or policy, it is received by all
the usual suspects as Holy Writ, but when the United Nations publishes
something critical of a terrorist organisation, that is quickly
condemned as a blatant lie?
What could possibly explain that, I wonder?
The explanation is in the separate post that I made on this topic, in
this thread.
The lily-livered BBC has regularly sided with the Israeli propaganda
department, and is no longer a source of objective truth, if it ever
was.
If you want truth, go to the source. Unfortunately the Israeli
government has lied to you. It has made false, unsubstantiated
allegations and when UNWRA has protected its reputation by suspending or >>> sacking individuals, this is interpreted by the morons as proof that
Israel has told the truth.
Were they sacked for doing nothing wrong, then?
Evidently they were sacked because they were accused by Israel who then refused to support their accusations despite repeatedly being asked to
do so.
So I think they were probably sacked for doing nothing wrong. Sacked to protect the organisation for which they worked which has been carrying
out important humanitarian relief work. But sacking them didn't protect
UNRWA from spiteful defamatory accusations from Israel and obstructive Israeli actions to prevent the humanitarian work. Israel wants people in
Gaza to starve to death or die of disease. It's part of the plan.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-13, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-09, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this
real and present threat of genocide.
Every part of that sentence is false. Is is a thing to be greatly >>>>>>>> wondered about. What Israel is doing cannot possibly be considered >>>>>>>> "defence". And there is no "real and present threat of genocide". >>>>>>>> As I have pointed out previously, regardless of whether Hamas would >>>>>>>> or would not commit genocide if they could, the fact is that they >>>>>>>> can't. They don't have the power to do so.
Then ask yourself why they have this declared aim that amounts to >>>>>>> genocide of the Jewish people.
Again it is my understanding that this is false and they do not
have any such declared aim.
You clearly haven’t read either a summary of Hamas’ founding charter >>>>> or the document itself.
What does that document have to do with anything? You said they "have" >>>> it as a declared aim, now you're referring to a document that is eight >>>> years out of date. Top tip: google the phrase "english past tense" to
learn how to write about things that are in the past.
The founding charter of Hamas is just that. It may have changed
later, but does reveal the fundamentalist-religious approach of the
organisation. Feel free to quote your evidence regarding your view
of Hamas’ current published doctrine.
I have no view of Hamas' current published doctrine. You are the one
making a claim, feel free to back it up with evidence - or to say that
you are abandoning your previous claim and moving to a new one.
When you said that Hamas’ founding charter was eight years out of date, either you already knew about the new version or you researched it. Either way, you know enough of Hamas’ written policy to rubbish its founding charter.
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had never been rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, using unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
That has already been disposed of; is there any reason you are continuing >>> to try and win some point or other?
How can it have been "disposed of" when you have not responded to it in
any way?
A full response countering your comment was made earlier, and given
the mod policy I’m not going to repeat it; it is in the records for
all to see.
On 14/07/2025 11:10 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:56, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/07/2025 08:55, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its fighters >>>>>>>> mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they also set >>>>>>>> themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ... all making >>>>>>>> civilians into legitimate military targets under the Geneva
Convention.
That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate
military targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli propaganda >>>>>>> department.
After all fighters on leave in cafes or their family home, or in
hospital being treated for wounds are hardly using "human shields" >>>>>> in any truthful use of the term. Let alone "members of Hamas" who
are civilian workers or officials and were never "fighters" at all. >>>>>> The suggestion that all these people nip into a land rover and do
the night shift as infantrymen is one of the more outrageously
stupid lies told.
Do you have any cites for that latter claim?
Unfortunately the discovery that UNRWA employees took part in the
murderous October 7th raid would tend to undermine your blanket
whitewash of Hamas, its employees, fighters, and sympathisers.
Unfortunately the brazen lie that UNRWA employees took part in the
murderous 7/10 attacks, and that UNRWA can no longer be trusted to
administer aid, has been a convenient excuse for Israel to impose a
famine on Gaza.
Israel has never demonstrated that UNRWA employees took part in 7/10,
and has banned all independent journalists from visiting the area and
making their own enquiries.
The lily-livered BBC toned down the reporting of UNRWA employees taking
part in the October 7th attack, but the action reported to be taken by
the UN is clear enough:
5 August 2024
Nine staff members at the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, may >>> have been involved in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, the
United Nations says.
All nine would have their employment terminated, said UN deputy
spokesperson Farhan Haq.
He said the UN had completed an investigation following allegations by
Israel that UNRWA staff were involved.
About 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken back to Gaza as >>> hostages in the unprecedented assault last autumn.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvyyz8461yo>
Isn't it odd that when the United Nations publishes "findings" attacking
a conservative government or policy, it is received by all the usual
suspects as Holy Writ, but when the United Nations publishes something critical of a terrorist organisation, that is quickly condemned as a
blatant lie?
What could possibly explain that, I wonder?
The lily-livered BBC has regularly sided with the Israeli propaganda
department, and is no longer a source of objective truth, if it ever was.
If you want truth, go to the source. Unfortunately the Israeli
government has lied to you. It has made false, unsubstantiated
allegations and when UNWRA has protected its reputation by suspending or
sacking individuals, this is interpreted by the morons as proof that
Israel has told the truth.
Were they sacked for doing nothing wrong, then?
[ ... ]
On 13/07/2025 16:42, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-12, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 13:50, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Biphobia is prejudice against >>>> bisexual people.
How could that prejudice ever be manifested?
Bisexual people do not normally stand out from the crowd, or at any
rate do not need to stand out from the crowd.
A strange question. It presupposes that nobody has ever known another
person to be bisexual, and possibly that bisexual people should hide
who they are at all times in order to avoid discrimination.
Well, my question was, how could that prejudice ever be manifested?
Some bigoted people react with hostility if they see two people of the
same sex embracing or kissing. But young heterosexual women sometimes
embrace each other.
If anyone chooses to share information about their sex lives this risks
being inappropriate. When a fellow employee of mine decided to chat with
a client about his recent visit to a gay club and the partners whom he
had picked up, that caused the client to be rather disgusted and to
request that a different person should handle that client's business.
But I don't think that could reasonably be considered "homophobia" or prejudice against gay people.
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought to be within close friendship circles only.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-13, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-09, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and >>>>>>>>> present threat of genocide.
Every part of that sentence is false. Is is a thing to be greatly >>>>>>>> wondered about. What Israel is doing cannot possibly be considered >>>>>>>> "defence". And there is no "real and present threat of genocide". >>>>>>>> As I have pointed out previously, regardless of whether Hamas would >>>>>>>> or would not commit genocide if they could, the fact is that they >>>>>>>> can't. They don't have the power to do so.
Then ask yourself why they have this declared aim that amounts to >>>>>>> genocide of the Jewish people.
Again it is my understanding that this is false and they do not have any >>>>>> such declared aim.
You clearly haven’t read either a summary of Hamas’ founding charter >>>>> or the document itself.
What does that document have to do with anything? You said they "have" >>>> it as a declared aim, now you're referring to a document that is eight >>>> years out of date. Top tip: google the phrase "english past tense" to
learn how to write about things that are in the past.
The founding charter of Hamas is just that. It may have changed later, but >>> does reveal the fundamentalist-religious approach of the organisation. Feel >>> free to quote your evidence regarding your view of Hamas’ current published
doctrine.
I have no view of Hamas' current published doctrine. You are the one
making a claim, feel free to back it up with evidence - or to say that
you are abandoning your previous claim and moving to a new one.
When you said that Hamas’ founding charter was eight years out of date, either you already knew about the new version or you researched it. Either way, you know enough of Hamas’ written policy to rubbish its founding charter.
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had never been rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, using unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:27:27 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 14/07/2025 11:10 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 13/07/2025 12:56, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/07/2025 08:55, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its fighters >>>>>>>>> mingle amongst and live with the civilian population, they also set >>>>>>>>> themselves up in hospitals and other public buildings ... all making >>>>>>>>> civilians into legitimate military targets under the Geneva
Convention.
That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate >>>>>>>> military targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli propaganda >>>>>>>> department.
After all fighters on leave in cafes or their family home, or in >>>>>>> hospital being treated for wounds are hardly using "human shields" >>>>>>> in any truthful use of the term. Let alone "members of Hamas" who >>>>>>> are civilian workers or officials and were never "fighters" at all. >>>>>>> The suggestion that all these people nip into a land rover and do >>>>>>> the night shift as infantrymen is one of the more outrageously
stupid lies told.
Do you have any cites for that latter claim?
Unfortunately the discovery that UNRWA employees took part in the
murderous October 7th raid would tend to undermine your blanket
whitewash of Hamas, its employees, fighters, and sympathisers.
Unfortunately the brazen lie that UNRWA employees took part in the
murderous 7/10 attacks, and that UNRWA can no longer be trusted to
administer aid, has been a convenient excuse for Israel to impose a
famine on Gaza.
Israel has never demonstrated that UNRWA employees took part in 7/10, >>>>> and has banned all independent journalists from visiting the area and >>>>> making their own enquiries.
The lily-livered BBC toned down the reporting of UNRWA employees taking >>>> part in the October 7th attack, but the action reported to be taken by >>>> the UN is clear enough:
5 August 2024
Nine staff members at the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, may >>>> have been involved in the 7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel, the
United Nations says.
All nine would have their employment terminated, said UN deputy
spokesperson Farhan Haq.
He said the UN had completed an investigation following allegations by >>>> Israel that UNRWA staff were involved.
About 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken back to Gaza as >>>> hostages in the unprecedented assault last autumn.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvyyz8461yo>
Isn't it odd that when the United Nations publishes "findings" attacking
a conservative government or policy, it is received by all the usual
suspects as Holy Writ, but when the United Nations publishes something
critical of a terrorist organisation, that is quickly condemned as a
blatant lie?
What could possibly explain that, I wonder?
The lily-livered BBC has regularly sided with the Israeli propaganda
department, and is no longer a source of objective truth, if it ever was. >>>
If you want truth, go to the source. Unfortunately the Israeli
government has lied to you. It has made false, unsubstantiated
allegations and when UNWRA has protected its reputation by suspending or >>> sacking individuals, this is interpreted by the morons as proof that
Israel has told the truth.
Were they sacked for doing nothing wrong, then?
[ ... ]
People are often sacked for misconduct on the balance of probability with no conclusive evidence of guilt. It's a hard world and there are lots of liars and propandists about. None of whom want to provide evidence that would stand up in court, however.
On 12/07/2025 07:08 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdesvfFsq37U1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mddm3gFmlopU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other legal
provision.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two
abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Now let's see.
How about...If Israel is to function "as the Jews' nation-state",
as described in the above "Law", which you were so keen to hear
all about, then it's probably not a very good idea to enable large
numbers of people to vote, who are fundamentally opposed to the
very idea of a Jewish Nation State,
Something along those lines should do the trick, I'd imagine.
Where's the Statute / Bill / Act / whatever?
It ought to exist online if it exists at all.
On 13/07/2025 12:52, Pamela wrote:
On 13:57 12 Jul 2025, The Todal said:
On 12/07/2025 11:48, Pamela wrote:
On a separate point, Hamas uses civilian human shields. Its
fighters mingle amongst and live with the civilian population,
they also set themselves up in hospitals and other public
buildings ... all making civilians into legitimate military
targets under the Geneva Convention.
That's simply untrue. It doesn't make civilians into legitimate
military targets. That's a convenient lie from the Israeli
propaganda department.
Who is making your claim that civilians in Gaza are legitimate
military targets?
On the other hand, the Geneva Convention says civilians (in places
like hospitals) lose their protection if Hamas conceals itself there
and uses it for military purposes.
"Discontinuance of protection of medical establishments and
units"
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/
article-21
Art.51 broadens this principle to locations other than hospitals. A
detailed discussion here:
<https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/
HJS-Hamass-Human-Shield-Strategy-in-Gaza-Report-WEB.pdf>
Israel deliberately bombs hospitals and kills medical staff and the
pretext is that somewhere in the building there is, or might be, a
Hamas terrorist. No proof is ever produced that Hamas terrorists were
present in the building, still less that they were engaged in hostile
action against Israeli forces. It is equally plausible that a wounded
Hamas terrorist might come to the hospital for treatment. That does
not, even under your skewed interpretaton of the Geneva Convention,
remove the protection that hospitals are deemed to have.
Your valiant attempts to defend a genocidal Israel are at odds with
the opinions of more reputable sources.
For instance:
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250709-israeli-committing- manifest-war-crime-says-legal-scholar-who-defended-tel-aviv- at-icj-genocide-case/
A leading member of Israel's legal team in the genocide case brought
by South Africa at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has
publicly condemned the Israeli military's latest operation in Gaza as
a "manifest war crime". Professor Eyal Benvenisti, a prominent
international law expert and director of the Lauterpacht Centre at
Cambridge University, co-authored a scathing legal opinion warning
that Israel's policy of forcibly "concentrating and moving" Gaza's
population amounts to a grave breach of international law.
Published on 8 July in Haaretz, the opinion, co-written with legal philosopher Professor Chaim Gans, denounces the IDF's current
campaign, dubbed Operation "Gideon's Chariots", as a clear case of
forcible population transfer, a crime prohibited under the Fourth
Geneva Convention and classified as both a war crime and a crime
against humanity under the Rome Statute.
unquote
and
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/13/israel- humanitarian-city-rafah-gaza-camp-ehud-olmert
The "humanitarian city" Israel's defence minister has proposed
building on the ruins of Rafah would be a concentration camp, and
forcing Palestinians inside would be ethnic cleansing, Israel's
former prime minister Ehud Olmert has told the Guardian.
Israel was already committing war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank,
Olmert said, and construction of the camp would mark an escalation. Palestinians collect the remains of relief supplies in Rafah Israeli
plan for forced transfer of Gaza's population 'a blueprint for crimes
against humanity' Read more
"It is a concentration camp. I am sorry," he said, when asked about
the plans laid out by Israel Katz last week. Once inside,
Palestinians would not be allowed to leave, except to go to other
countries, Katz said.
Extreme suffering in Gaza and settler atrocities in the West Bank
were fuelling growing anger against Israel that cannot all be written
off as antisemitism, Olmert said.
"In the United States there is more and more and more expanding
expressions of hatred to Israel," he said. "We make a discount to
ourselves saying: 'They are antisemites.' I don't think that they are
only antisemites, I think many of them are anti-Israel because of
what they watch on television, what they watch on social networks.
"This is a painful but normal reaction of people who say: 'Hey, you
guys have crossed every possible line.'"
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:Unfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their declared aim has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a proposal for a Palestine
On 2025-07-13, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-09, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and >>>>>>>>>> present threat of genocide.
Every part of that sentence is false. Is is a thing to be greatly >>>>>>>>> wondered about. What Israel is doing cannot possibly be considered >>>>>>>>> "defence". And there is no "real and present threat of genocide". >>>>>>>>> As I have pointed out previously, regardless of whether Hamas would >>>>>>>>> or would not commit genocide if they could, the fact is that they >>>>>>>>> can't. They don't have the power to do so.
Then ask yourself why they have this declared aim that amounts to >>>>>>>> genocide of the Jewish people.
Again it is my understanding that this is false and they do not have any
such declared aim.
You clearly haven’t read either a summary of Hamas’ founding charter >>>>>> or the document itself.
What does that document have to do with anything? You said they "have" >>>>> it as a declared aim, now you're referring to a document that is eight >>>>> years out of date. Top tip: google the phrase "english past tense" to >>>>> learn how to write about things that are in the past.
The founding charter of Hamas is just that. It may have changed later, but >>>> does reveal the fundamentalist-religious approach of the organisation. Feel
free to quote your evidence regarding your view of Hamas’ current published
doctrine.
I have no view of Hamas' current published doctrine. You are the one
making a claim, feel free to back it up with evidence - or to say that
you are abandoning your previous claim and moving to a new one.
When you said that Hamas’ founding charter was eight years out of date,
either you already knew about the new version or you researched it. Either >> way, you know enough of Hamas’ written policy to rubbish its founding
charter.
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had never been >> rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, using
unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible point of view, but irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal aim has never been
rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar. Unfortunately. I'd check your sources.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had never been >>> rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, usingUnfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their
unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
declared aim has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a
proposal for a Palestine were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible point of
view, but irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal
aim has never been rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar.
Unfortunately. I'd check your sources.
Ah! So for the last eight years Hamas never fired rockets into Israel,
armed themselves to the teeth, or planned, trained for, and executed the October 7th massacre?
If Hamas is armed like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and acts
like a terrorist, well, it’s a terrorist.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:Unfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their declared aim >> has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a proposal for a Palestine
On 2025-07-13, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-11, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-09, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
It is little wonder that Israel defends itself against this real and
present threat of genocide.
Every part of that sentence is false. Is is a thing to be greatly >>>>>>>>>> wondered about. What Israel is doing cannot possibly be considered >>>>>>>>>> "defence". And there is no "real and present threat of genocide". >>>>>>>>>> As I have pointed out previously, regardless of whether Hamas would >>>>>>>>>> or would not commit genocide if they could, the fact is that they >>>>>>>>>> can't. They don't have the power to do so.
Then ask yourself why they have this declared aim that amounts to >>>>>>>>> genocide of the Jewish people.
Again it is my understanding that this is false and they do not have any
such declared aim.
You clearly haven’t read either a summary of Hamas’ founding charter
or the document itself.
What does that document have to do with anything? You said they "have" >>>>>> it as a declared aim, now you're referring to a document that is eight >>>>>> years out of date. Top tip: google the phrase "english past tense" to >>>>>> learn how to write about things that are in the past.
The founding charter of Hamas is just that. It may have changed later, but
does reveal the fundamentalist-religious approach of the organisation. Feel
free to quote your evidence regarding your view of Hamas’ current published
doctrine.
I have no view of Hamas' current published doctrine. You are the one
making a claim, feel free to back it up with evidence - or to say that >>>> you are abandoning your previous claim and moving to a new one.
When you said that Hamas’ founding charter was eight years out of date, >>> either you already knew about the new version or you researched it. Either >>> way, you know enough of Hamas’ written policy to rubbish its founding
charter.
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had never been >>> rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, using
unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible point of view, but >> irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal aim has never been
rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar. Unfortunately. I'd check your >> sources.
Ah! So for the last eight years Hamas never fired rockets into Israel,
armed themselves to the teeth, or planned, trained for, and executed the October 7th massacre?
Why were they doing this? Was it just the excusable exuberance of
well-armed fundamentalists on Hamas’ part?
If Hamas is armed like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and acts like a terrorist, well, it’s a terrorist.
Someone is pulling your leg. Fortunately Israel is made of sterner stuff,
and doesn’t believe the window-dressing claptrap.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdhq0mFd2lcU2@mid.individual.net...
On 12/07/2025 07:08 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdesvfFsq37U1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mddm3gFmlopU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other legal
provision.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two
abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Now let's see.
How about...If Israel is to function "as the Jews' nation-state",
as described in the above "Law", which you were so keen to hear
all about, then it's probably not a very good idea to enable large
numbers of people to vote, who are fundamentally opposed to the
very idea of a Jewish Nation State,
Something along those lines should do the trick, I'd imagine.
Where's the Statute / Bill / Act / whatever?
It ought to exist online if it exists at all.
As above
quote:
The Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic
Law that specifies the country's significance to the Jewish people.
It was passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against.
unquote.
As it happens the, actual sentiment "A Jewish State for Jewish People"
found expression in the original Jewish Declaration of Independence
c 1947/8. However in the spirit of unbounded optimism at the time, it
was somehow hoped that the Arabs/Palestinians would go along with this;
and so it was thought unnecessarily divisive and bad PR to embody it
in legislation.
The above information is for the benefit of any readers other than
yourself, who may actually be interested in the topic.
On 15/07/2025 09:16 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdhq0mFd2lcU2@mid.individual.net...
On 12/07/2025 07:08 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdesvfFsq37U1@mid.individual.net...
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mddm3gFmlopU1@mid.individual.net...
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other legal
provision.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two
abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Now let's see.
How about...If Israel is to function "as the Jews' nation-state",
as described in the above "Law", which you were so keen to hear
all about, then it's probably not a very good idea to enable large
numbers of people to vote, who are fundamentally opposed to the
very idea of a Jewish Nation State,
Something along those lines should do the trick, I'd imagine.
Where's the Statute / Bill / Act / whatever?
It ought to exist online if it exists at all.
As above
quote:
The Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic
Law that specifies the country's significance to the Jewish people.
It was passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against.
unquote.
Right.
So please quote the Section(s) of what must by now be an Act that say what others (and
perhaps, though not necessarily, you) are saying it/they say(s).
Expressing the significance of Israel to Jews is hardly the same thing as preventing
citizenship for non-Jews, as I know you will readily agree.
On 15 Jul 2025 at 10:40:36 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had never been >>>> rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, using
unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
Unfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their declared aim >>> has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a proposal for a Palestine
were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible point of view, but
irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal aim has never been
rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar. Unfortunately. I'd check your >>> sources.
Ah! So for the last eight years Hamas never fired rockets into Israel,
armed themselves to the teeth, or planned, trained for, and executed the
October 7th massacre?
Why were they doing this? Was it just the excusable exuberance of
well-armed fundamentalists on Hamas’ part?
If Hamas is armed like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and acts like a >> terrorist, well, it’s a terrorist.
Someone is pulling your leg. Fortunately Israel is made of sterner stuff,
and doesn’t believe the window-dressing claptrap.
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about Hamas' behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about an a false statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to talk about Hamas' behaviour then I for one am not going to argue about it. But you said they had
not rescinded their published policy. That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written policies in order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist behaviour.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Jul 2025 at 10:40:36 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[…]
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had never been
rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, using >>>>> unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
Unfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their declared aim
has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a proposal for a Palestine
were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible point of view, but
irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal aim has never been
rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar. Unfortunately. I'd check your
sources.
Ah! So for the last eight years Hamas never fired rockets into Israel,
armed themselves to the teeth, or planned, trained for, and executed the >>> October 7th massacre?
Why were they doing this? Was it just the excusable exuberance of
well-armed fundamentalists on Hamas’ part?
If Hamas is armed like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and acts like a >>> terrorist, well, it’s a terrorist.
Someone is pulling your leg. Fortunately Israel is made of sterner stuff, >>> and doesn’t believe the window-dressing claptrap.
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about Hamas' >> behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about an a false
statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to talk about Hamas' >> behaviour then I for one am not going to argue about it. But you said they had
not rescinded their published policy. That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written policies in
order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’ behaviour is drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its policies, published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. The thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th came about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the
planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed brigades and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was
financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching
policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show us the published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and explain why it isn’t being followed.
In regard to Hamas, I’m reminded of Bert Harris’ comment that “They sowed
the wind, now they are reaping the whirlwind”.
Or as Corporal Jones used to note: they don’t like it up ‘em.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about
Hamas' behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about
an a false statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to
talk about Hamas' behaviour then I for one am not going to argue
about it. But you said they had not rescinded their published policy.
That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written
policies in order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist
behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’ behaviour is drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its policies, published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. The thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th came about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the
planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed brigades and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was
financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching
policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show us the published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and explain why it isn’t being followed.
In regard to Hamas, I’m reminded of Bert Harris’ comment that “They sowed
the wind, now they are reaping the whirlwind”.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 09:16 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 07:08 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other legal
provision.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two
abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Now let's see.
How about...If Israel is to function "as the Jews' nation-state",
as described in the above "Law", which you were so keen to hear
all about, then it's probably not a very good idea to enable large
numbers of people to vote, who are fundamentally opposed to the
very idea of a Jewish Nation State,
Something along those lines should do the trick, I'd imagine.
Where's the Statute / Bill / Act / whatever?
It ought to exist online if it exists at all.
As above
quote:
The Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic
Law that specifies the country's significance to the Jewish people.
It was passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against.
unquote.
Right.
So please quote the Section(s) of what must by now be an Act that say what others (and
perhaps, though not necessarily, you) are saying it/they say(s).
Expressing the significance of Israel to Jews is hardly the same thing as preventing
citizenship for non-Jews, as I know you will readily agree.
Roger's original point, to which you took such exemption was, if you remember...
" it is a rather strongly-held principle of Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority
any time"
Granting citizenship to some non-Jews, is not the same thing as enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time. As I know you will readily agree.
Now comes the bit which you seem to be having such a problem with -
If Israel enfranchised a non-Jewish majority at any time ...
then that would immediately undermine the whole purpose of the setting
up of the State of Israel in the first place; as a Jewish State for
Jewish people
As before, if you're still having problems understanding what is, after
all, a fairly simple point, then I can only suggest you show this post to somebody else; who may be able to better explain it to you, than I
apparently can.
On 16/07/2025 10:20, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Jul 2025 at 10:40:36 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[…]
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had
never been
rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, using >>>>>> unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
Unfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their
declared aim
has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a proposal for
a Palestine
were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible point of
view, but
irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal aim has
never been
rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar. Unfortunately. I'd
check your
sources.
Ah! So for the last eight years Hamas never fired rockets into Israel, >>>> armed themselves to the teeth, or planned, trained for, and executed
the
October 7th massacre?
Why were they doing this? Was it just the excusable exuberance of
well-armed fundamentalists on Hamas’ part?
If Hamas is armed like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and acts
like a
terrorist, well, it’s a terrorist.
Someone is pulling your leg. Fortunately Israel is made of sterner
stuff,
and doesn’t believe the window-dressing claptrap.
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about
Hamas'
behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about an a false
statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to talk about
Hamas'
behaviour then I for one am not going to argue about it. But you said
they had
not rescinded their published policy. That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written
policies in
order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’
behaviour is
drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its policies,
published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. The >> thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th
came
about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the
planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed
brigades
and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was
financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching
policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show
us the
published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and explain why it >> isn’t being followed.
In regard to Hamas, I’m reminded of Bert Harris’ comment that “They sowed
the wind, now they are reaping the whirlwind”.
Or as Corporal Jones used to note: they don’t like it up ‘em.
But perhaps you've got this all wrong. Perhaps Hamas are delighted with
the current situation. Hamas, and for that matter the government of
Iran, don't give a shit about the slaughter of civilians perpetrated by
the IDF and latterly by the Americans. They may even be delighted.
On 15/07/2025 04:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 09:16 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 07:08 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or >>>>>>>>> other legal
provision.
But that has not happened.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two
abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Now let's see.
How about...If Israel is to function "as the Jews' nation-state",
as described in the above "Law", which you were so keen to hear
all about, then it's probably not a very good idea to enable large >>>>>> numbers of people to vote, who are fundamentally opposed to the
very idea of a Jewish Nation State,
Something along those lines should do the trick, I'd imagine.
Where's the Statute / Bill / Act / whatever?
It ought to exist online if it exists at all.
As above
quote:
The Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic
Law that specifies the country's significance to the Jewish people.
It was passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against.
unquote.
Right.
So please quote the Section(s) of what must by now be an Act that say what >>> others (and
perhaps, though not necessarily, you) are saying it/they say(s).
Expressing the significance of Israel to Jews is hardly the same thing as >>> preventing
citizenship for non-Jews, as I know you will readily agree.
Roger's original point, to which you took such exemption was, if you
remember...
" it is a rather strongly-held principle of Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority
any time"
I merely want evidence to support that assertion, plus an explanation of
how the "Nation-State Bill or Nationality Bill" makes provision that citizenship denies citizenship of Israel to non-Jews.
That's reasonable enough, isn't it?
Granting citizenship to some non-Jews, is not the same thing as enfranchising
a non-Jewish majority any time. As I know you will readily agree.
What does that mean?
Do you have any figures with which to back it up?
Now comes the bit which you seem to be having such a problem with -
If Israel enfranchised a non-Jewish majority at any time ...
then that would immediately undermine the whole purpose of the setting
up of the State of Israel in the first place; as a Jewish State for
Jewish people
Says who?
And on what basis?
As before, if you're still having problems understanding what is, after
all, a fairly simple point, then I can only suggest you show this post to
somebody else; who may be able to better explain it to you, than I
apparently can.
All you (or anyone else) need to prove is that the claim referenced
above is given life in legislation passed by the Knesset.
No-one supporting that proposition seems even prepared to search for it
and so the default position and working assumption has to be that no
such legislation exists (that despite the claims made for this or that
Bill, as quoted above).
So show and tell this elusive legislative provision, or it doesn't exist.
I can't say fairer than that.
On 16 Jul 2025 at 13:54:07 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 04:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 09:16 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 07:08 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or >>>>>>>>>> other legal
provision.
But that has not happened.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two >>>>>>>>> abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Now let's see.
How about...If Israel is to function "as the Jews' nation-state", >>>>>>> as described in the above "Law", which you were so keen to hear
all about, then it's probably not a very good idea to enable large >>>>>>> numbers of people to vote, who are fundamentally opposed to the
very idea of a Jewish Nation State,
Something along those lines should do the trick, I'd imagine.
Where's the Statute / Bill / Act / whatever?
It ought to exist online if it exists at all.
As above
quote:
The Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic >>>>> Law that specifies the country's significance to the Jewish people. >>>>> It was passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against.
unquote.
Right.
So please quote the Section(s) of what must by now be an Act that say what >>>> others (and
perhaps, though not necessarily, you) are saying it/they say(s).
Expressing the significance of Israel to Jews is hardly the same thing as >>>> preventing
citizenship for non-Jews, as I know you will readily agree.
Roger's original point, to which you took such exemption was, if you
remember...
" it is a rather strongly-held principle of Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority
any time"
I merely want evidence to support that assertion, plus an explanation of
how the "Nation-State Bill or Nationality Bill" makes provision that
citizenship denies citizenship of Israel to non-Jews.
That's reasonable enough, isn't it?
Granting citizenship to some non-Jews, is not the same thing as enfranchising
a non-Jewish majority any time. As I know you will readily agree.
What does that mean?
Do you have any figures with which to back it up?
Now comes the bit which you seem to be having such a problem with -
If Israel enfranchised a non-Jewish majority at any time ...
then that would immediately undermine the whole purpose of the setting
up of the State of Israel in the first place; as a Jewish State for
Jewish people
Says who?
And on what basis?
As before, if you're still having problems understanding what is, after
all, a fairly simple point, then I can only suggest you show this post to >>> somebody else; who may be able to better explain it to you, than I
apparently can.
All you (or anyone else) need to prove is that the claim referenced
above is given life in legislation passed by the Knesset.
No-one supporting that proposition seems even prepared to search for it
and so the default position and working assumption has to be that no
such legislation exists (that despite the claims made for this or that
Bill, as quoted above).
So show and tell this elusive legislative provision, or it doesn't exist.
I can't say fairer than that.
You truly are a unique individual; I doubt if there is anyone like you in the whole world who really thinks Israel would allow a non-Jewish majority of voters to exist in Israel. Unless you are arguing for the sake of arguing?
On 15/07/2025 04:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 09:16 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 07:08 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other
legal
provision.
But that has not happened.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two
abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Now let's see.
How about...If Israel is to function "as the Jews' nation-state",
as described in the above "Law", which you were so keen to hear
all about, then it's probably not a very good idea to enable large >>>>>> numbers of people to vote, who are fundamentally opposed to the
very idea of a Jewish Nation State,
Something along those lines should do the trick, I'd imagine.
Where's the Statute / Bill / Act / whatever?
It ought to exist online if it exists at all.
As above
quote:
The Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic
Law that specifies the country's significance to the Jewish people.
It was passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against.
unquote.
Right.
So please quote the Section(s) of what must by now be an Act that say what others
(and
perhaps, though not necessarily, you) are saying it/they say(s).
Expressing the significance of Israel to Jews is hardly the same thing as preventing
citizenship for non-Jews, as I know you will readily agree.
Roger's original point, to which you took such exemption was, if you remember...
" it is a rather strongly-held principle of Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority
any time"
I merely want evidence to support that assertion, plus an explanation of how the
"Nation-State Bill or Nationality Bill" makes provision that citizenship denies
citizenship of Israel to non-Jews.
That's reasonable enough, isn't it?
On 16 Jul 2025 at 13:54:07 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 04:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 09:16 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 07:08 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or >>>>>>>>>> other legal
provision.
But that has not happened.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two >>>>>>>>> abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Now let's see.
How about...If Israel is to function "as the Jews' nation-state", >>>>>>> as described in the above "Law", which you were so keen to hear
all about, then it's probably not a very good idea to enable large >>>>>>> numbers of people to vote, who are fundamentally opposed to the
very idea of a Jewish Nation State,
Something along those lines should do the trick, I'd imagine.
Where's the Statute / Bill / Act / whatever?
It ought to exist online if it exists at all.
As above
quote:
The Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic >>>>> Law that specifies the country's significance to the Jewish people. >>>>> It was passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against.
unquote.
Right.
So please quote the Section(s) of what must by now be an Act that say what >>>> others (and
perhaps, though not necessarily, you) are saying it/they say(s).
Expressing the significance of Israel to Jews is hardly the same thing as >>>> preventing
citizenship for non-Jews, as I know you will readily agree.
Roger's original point, to which you took such exemption was, if you
remember...
" it is a rather strongly-held principle of Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority
any time"
I merely want evidence to support that assertion, plus an explanation of
how the "Nation-State Bill or Nationality Bill" makes provision that
citizenship denies citizenship of Israel to non-Jews.
That's reasonable enough, isn't it?
Granting citizenship to some non-Jews, is not the same thing as enfranchising
a non-Jewish majority any time. As I know you will readily agree.
What does that mean?
Do you have any figures with which to back it up?
Now comes the bit which you seem to be having such a problem with -
If Israel enfranchised a non-Jewish majority at any time ...
then that would immediately undermine the whole purpose of the setting
up of the State of Israel in the first place; as a Jewish State for
Jewish people
Says who?
And on what basis?
As before, if you're still having problems understanding what is, after
all, a fairly simple point, then I can only suggest you show this post to >>> somebody else; who may be able to better explain it to you, than I
apparently can.
All you (or anyone else) need to prove is that the claim referenced
above is given life in legislation passed by the Knesset.
No-one supporting that proposition seems even prepared to search for it
and so the default position and working assumption has to be that no
such legislation exists (that despite the claims made for this or that
Bill, as quoted above).
So show and tell this elusive legislative provision, or it doesn't exist.
I can't say fairer than that.
You truly are a unique individual; I doubt if there is anyone like you in the whole world who really thinks Israel would allow a non-Jewish majority of voters to exist in Israel. Unless you are arguing for the sake of arguing?
If anyone chooses to share information about their sex lives this risks
being inappropriate. When a fellow employee of mine decided to chat with
a client about his recent visit to a gay club and the partners whom he
had picked up, that caused the client to be rather disgusted and to
request that a different person should handle that client's business.
But I don't think that could reasonably be considered "homophobia" or prejudice against gay people.
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought to be within close friendship circles only.
On 7/14/25 11:03, The Todal wrote:
If anyone chooses to share information about their sex lives this risks
being inappropriate. When a fellow employee of mine decided to chat with
a client about his recent visit to a gay club and the partners whom he
had picked up, that caused the client to be rather disgusted and to
request that a different person should handle that client's business.
But I don't think that could reasonably be considered "homophobia" or
prejudice against gay people.
My natural assumption would be homophobia, that could be wrong, but...
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking about religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them talking
about sex?
The second link is in a similar vein. Your quotation from it omits the counterbalancing view held by interviewee Ehud Olmert, where the
article says: "Olmert did not consider Israel’s current campaign was
ethnic cleansing because, he said, evacuating civilians to protect them
from fighting was legal under international law".
On 16/07/2025 11:02 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 10:20, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Jul 2025 at 10:40:36 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[…]
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had
never been
rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map,
using
unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
Unfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their
declared aim
has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a proposal for >>>>>> a Palestine
were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible point of >>>>>> view, but
irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal aim has >>>>>> never been
rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar. Unfortunately. I'd
check your
sources.
Ah! So for the last eight years Hamas never fired rockets into Israel, >>>>> armed themselves to the teeth, or planned, trained for, and executed >>>>> the
October 7th massacre?
Why were they doing this? Was it just the excusable exuberance of
well-armed fundamentalists on Hamas’ part?
If Hamas is armed like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and acts >>>>> like a
terrorist, well, it’s a terrorist.
Someone is pulling your leg. Fortunately Israel is made of sterner
stuff,
and doesn’t believe the window-dressing claptrap.
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about
Hamas'
behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about an a false >>>> statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to talk about >>>> Hamas'
behaviour then I for one am not going to argue about it. But you said
they had
not rescinded their published policy. That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written
policies in
order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’
behaviour is
drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its policies, >>> published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. The >>> thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th
came
about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the
planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed
brigades
and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was
financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching
policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show
us the
published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and explain why it >>> isn’t being followed.
In regard to Hamas, I’m reminded of Bert Harris’ comment that “They >>> sowed
the wind, now they are reaping the whirlwind”.
Or as Corporal Jones used to note: they don’t like it up ‘em.
But perhaps you've got this all wrong. Perhaps Hamas are delighted with
the current situation. Hamas, and for that matter the government of
Iran, don't give a shit about the slaughter of civilians perpetrated by
the IDF and latterly by the Americans. They may even be delighted.
That does not militate against a word of what Spike wrote.
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/25 11:03, The Todal wrote:
If anyone chooses to share information about their sex lives this risks
being inappropriate. When a fellow employee of mine decided to chat with >>> a client about his recent visit to a gay club and the partners whom he
had picked up, that caused the client to be rather disgusted and to
request that a different person should handle that client's business.
But I don't think that could reasonably be considered "homophobia" or
prejudice against gay people.
My natural assumption would be homophobia, that could be wrong, but...
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them talking
about sex?
It's not even sex, per se. Straight people think absolutely nothing of mentioning the fact that they have a opposite-sex spouse or partner,
and while they are of course unlikely to come right out with "my wife
and I had highly satisfactory penetrative sexual intercourse last
night", there will certainly be the unspoken implication that it is a
sexual relationship.
Mention a same-sex partner however and suddenly it's "rubbing your sex
life in their faces".
On 7/15/25 10:16, Pamela wrote:
The second link is in a similar vein. Your quotation from it omits the
counterbalancing view held by interviewee Ehud Olmert, where the
article says: "Olmert did not consider Israel’s current campaign was
ethnic cleansing because, he said, evacuating civilians to protect them
from fighting was legal under international law".
Where have we heard that before?
Google AI can help:
"
During the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902), South Africa saw the
establishment of "concentration camps" where civilians, primarily women
and children, were interned to protect them from the conflict. These
camps, however, were not intended as safe havens, but rather became
sites of hardship and high mortality due to inadequate resources and
disease.
"
George Santayana also had a good quote:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdplnfFmqv5U1@mid.individual.net...
On 15/07/2025 04:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 09:16 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 07:08 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or other
legal
provision.
But that has not happened.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
[...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies
the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two >>>>>>>>> abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Now let's see.
How about...If Israel is to function "as the Jews' nation-state", >>>>>>> as described in the above "Law", which you were so keen to hear
all about, then it's probably not a very good idea to enable large >>>>>>> numbers of people to vote, who are fundamentally opposed to the
very idea of a Jewish Nation State,
Something along those lines should do the trick, I'd imagine.
Where's the Statute / Bill / Act / whatever?
It ought to exist online if it exists at all.
As above
quote:
The Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic >>>>> Law that specifies the country's significance to the Jewish people. >>>>> It was passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against.
unquote.
Right.
So please quote the Section(s) of what must by now be an Act that say what others
(and
perhaps, though not necessarily, you) are saying it/they say(s).
Expressing the significance of Israel to Jews is hardly the same thing as preventing
citizenship for non-Jews, as I know you will readily agree.
Roger's original point, to which you took such exemption was, if you remember...
" it is a rather strongly-held principle of Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority
any time"
I merely want evidence to support that assertion, plus an explanation of how the
"Nation-State Bill or Nationality Bill" makes provision that citizenship denies
citizenship of Israel to non-Jews.
That's reasonable enough, isn't it?
No it isn't.
Simply because granting citizenship to non-Jews would not of itself
thereby produce *a non Jewish majority*. Which was Roger's, and Israel's
sole concern
Which could only ever happen should citizenship be granted to sufficient numbers.
Which it never will. Simply because ever since its creation Israel has adopted a deliberate policy of expelling Palestinian Arabs following
every conflict; while at the same time greatly increasing its Jewish population by successive waves of immigration.
Which is why granting citizenship to non-Jews, of itself has
never been an issue.
While if you still insist that The Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill was never in fact passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Jul 2025 at 13:54:07 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 04:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 09:16 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 07:08 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or
other legal
provision.
But that has not happened.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People >>>>>>>>>> [...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies >>>>>>>>>> the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was
passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two >>>>>>>>>> abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles
and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to
fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Now let's see.
How about...If Israel is to function "as the Jews' nation-state", >>>>>>>> as described in the above "Law", which you were so keen to hear >>>>>>>> all about, then it's probably not a very good idea to enable large >>>>>>>> numbers of people to vote, who are fundamentally opposed to the >>>>>>>> very idea of a Jewish Nation State,
Something along those lines should do the trick, I'd imagine.
Where's the Statute / Bill / Act / whatever?
It ought to exist online if it exists at all.
As above
quote:
The Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic >>>>>> Law that specifies the country's significance to the Jewish people. >>>>>> It was passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against.
unquote.
Right.
So please quote the Section(s) of what must by now be an Act that say what
others (and
perhaps, though not necessarily, you) are saying it/they say(s).
Expressing the significance of Israel to Jews is hardly the same thing as >>>>> preventing
citizenship for non-Jews, as I know you will readily agree.
Roger's original point, to which you took such exemption was, if you
remember...
" it is a rather strongly-held principle of Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority
any time"
I merely want evidence to support that assertion, plus an explanation of >>> how the "Nation-State Bill or Nationality Bill" makes provision that
citizenship denies citizenship of Israel to non-Jews.
That's reasonable enough, isn't it?
Granting citizenship to some non-Jews, is not the same thing as enfranchising
a non-Jewish majority any time. As I know you will readily agree.
What does that mean?
Do you have any figures with which to back it up?
Now comes the bit which you seem to be having such a problem with -
If Israel enfranchised a non-Jewish majority at any time ...
then that would immediately undermine the whole purpose of the setting >>>> up of the State of Israel in the first place; as a Jewish State for
Jewish people
Says who?
And on what basis?
As before, if you're still having problems understanding what is, after >>>> all, a fairly simple point, then I can only suggest you show this post to >>>> somebody else; who may be able to better explain it to you, than I
apparently can.
All you (or anyone else) need to prove is that the claim referenced
above is given life in legislation passed by the Knesset.
No-one supporting that proposition seems even prepared to search for it
and so the default position and working assumption has to be that no
such legislation exists (that despite the claims made for this or that
Bill, as quoted above).
So show and tell this elusive legislative provision, or it doesn't exist. >>>
I can't say fairer than that.
You truly are a unique individual; I doubt if there is anyone like you in the
whole world who really thinks Israel would allow a non-Jewish majority of
voters to exist in Israel. Unless you are arguing for the sake of arguing? >>
If the Wikipedia article cited above is not sufficient, here is a link to
the Israeli government website.
https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/activity/documents/BasicLawsPDF/BasicLawNationState.pdf
1.c is perhaps the relevant paragraph
Quote
The realization of the right to national self-
determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the
Jewish People.
Unquote
For a more definitive statement we need someone who reads and understands Hebrew as that is the language of the authoritative version.
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/25 11:03, The Todal wrote:
If anyone chooses to share information about their sex lives this risks
being inappropriate. When a fellow employee of mine decided to chat with >>> a client about his recent visit to a gay club and the partners whom he
had picked up, that caused the client to be rather disgusted and to
request that a different person should handle that client's business.
But I don't think that could reasonably be considered "homophobia" or
prejudice against gay people.
My natural assumption would be homophobia, that could be wrong, but...
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them talking
about sex?
It's not even sex, per se. Straight people think absolutely nothing of mentioning the fact that they have a opposite-sex spouse or partner,
and while they are of course unlikely to come right out with "my wife
and I had highly satisfactory penetrative sexual intercourse last
night", there will certainly be the unspoken implication that it is a
sexual relationship.
Mention a same-sex partner however and suddenly it's "rubbing your sex
life in their faces".
On 17/07/2025 00:09, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 7/14/25 11:03, The Todal wrote:
If anyone chooses to share information about their sex lives this risks >>>> being inappropriate. When a fellow employee of mine decided to chat
with
a client about his recent visit to a gay club and the partners whom he >>>> had picked up, that caused the client to be rather disgusted and to
request that a different person should handle that client's business.
But I don't think that could reasonably be considered "homophobia" or
prejudice against gay people.
My natural assumption would be homophobia, that could be wrong, but...
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought to be >>>> within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them talking
about sex?
It's not even sex, per se. Straight people think absolutely nothing of
mentioning the fact that they have a opposite-sex spouse or partner,
and while they are of course unlikely to come right out with "my wife
and I had highly satisfactory penetrative sexual intercourse last
night", there will certainly be the unspoken implication that it is a
sexual relationship.
Mention a same-sex partner however and suddenly it's "rubbing your sex
life in their faces".
I have a friend in a social group I belong to, a chap in his 60s, who regularly tells us that he had some lovely sex last night with his girlfriend. We know he went through a painful divorce and his now-adult children don't speak to him, and we don't begrudge him his pleasure in
his new relationship but no, I don't think I need to hear about his
orgasms and I don't think anyone else in the group wants to hear about
them either.
And in a firm I once worked for, the female cashier, in her early 50s,
used to tell the female secretaries about her new boyfriend who was really,really good at cunnilingus. They made fun of her behind her back.
In both cases, it's eccentric behaviour and inappropriate unless you are speaking to very close friends in a social situation.
I suppose it comes from insecurity - the desire to prove that you aren't
a Billy No-Mates and have found the holy grail of a fulfilling sexual relationship. For as long as it lasts, anyway.
I don't think one's natural assumption should be homophobia merely
because sometimes it involves same-sex relationships.
On 16/07/2025 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 11:02 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 10:20, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Jul 2025 at 10:40:36 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:[…]
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had >>>>>>>> never been
rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, >>>>>>>> using
unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
Unfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their
declared aim
has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a proposal for >>>>>>> a Palestine
were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible point of >>>>>>> view, but
irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal aim has >>>>>>> never been
rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar. Unfortunately. I'd >>>>>>> check your
sources.
Ah! So for the last eight years Hamas never fired rockets into
Israel,
armed themselves to the teeth, or planned, trained for, and executed >>>>>> the
October 7th massacre?
Why were they doing this? Was it just the excusable exuberance of
well-armed fundamentalists on Hamas’ part?
If Hamas is armed like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and acts >>>>>> like a
terrorist, well, it’s a terrorist.
Someone is pulling your leg. Fortunately Israel is made of sterner >>>>>> stuff,
and doesn’t believe the window-dressing claptrap.
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about >>>>> Hamas'
behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about an a
false
statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to talk about >>>>> Hamas'
behaviour then I for one am not going to argue about it. But you said >>>>> they had
not rescinded their published policy. That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written
policies in
order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’
behaviour is
drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its
policies,
published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. >>>> The
thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th
came
about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the
planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed
brigades
and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was
financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching
policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show
us the
published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and explain why it
isn’t being followed.
In regard to Hamas, I’m reminded of Bert Harris’ comment that “They >>>> sowed
the wind, now they are reaping the whirlwind”.
Or as Corporal Jones used to note: they don’t like it up ‘em.
But perhaps you've got this all wrong. Perhaps Hamas are delighted with
the current situation. Hamas, and for that matter the government of
Iran, don't give a shit about the slaughter of civilians perpetrated by
the IDF and latterly by the Americans. They may even be delighted.
That does not militate against a word of what Spike wrote.
What Spike wrote was, they don't like it up 'em.
They are reaping the
whirlwind. Who's "they" in that context? Babies and children? Did any
of them do anything to upset Israel?
On 17/07/2025 10:17 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 11:02 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 10:20, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Jul 2025 at 10:40:36 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com>
wrote:
[…]
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had >>>>>>>>> never been
rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, >>>>>>>>> using
unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
Unfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their >>>>>>>> declared aim
has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a proposal for >>>>>>>> a Palestine
were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible point of >>>>>>>> view, but
irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal aim has >>>>>>>> never been
rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar. Unfortunately. I'd >>>>>>>> check your
sources.
Ah! So for the last eight years Hamas never fired rockets into
Israel,
armed themselves to the teeth, or planned, trained for, and executed >>>>>>> the
October 7th massacre?
Why were they doing this? Was it just the excusable exuberance of >>>>>>> well-armed fundamentalists on Hamas’ part?
If Hamas is armed like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and acts >>>>>>> like a
terrorist, well, it’s a terrorist.
Someone is pulling your leg. Fortunately Israel is made of sterner >>>>>>> stuff,
and doesn’t believe the window-dressing claptrap.
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about >>>>>> Hamas'
behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about an a
false
statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to talk about >>>>>> Hamas'
behaviour then I for one am not going to argue about it. But you said >>>>>> they had
not rescinded their published policy. That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written
policies in
order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’
behaviour is
drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its
policies,
published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. >>>>> The
thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th >>>>> came
about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the
planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed
brigades
and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was
financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching >>>>> policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show >>>>> us the
published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and explain >>>>> why it
isn’t being followed.
In regard to Hamas, I’m reminded of Bert Harris’ comment that “They >>>>> sowed
the wind, now they are reaping the whirlwind”.
Or as Corporal Jones used to note: they don’t like it up ‘em.
But perhaps you've got this all wrong. Perhaps Hamas are delighted with >>>> the current situation. Hamas, and for that matter the government of
Iran, don't give a shit about the slaughter of civilians perpetrated by >>>> the IDF and latterly by the Americans. They may even be delighted.
That does not militate against a word of what Spike wrote.
What Spike wrote was, they don't like it up 'em.
He wrote a good deal more than that. Did you read it all?
They are reaping the
whirlwind. Who's "they" in that context? Babies and children? Did any
of them do anything to upset Israel?
Read all of what he wrote and the answer to that is there.
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought to be >>>> within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it.
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought
to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking about >>>> religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them talking >>>> about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it.
What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? Can
you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
On 2025-07-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about
Hamas' behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about
an a false statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to
talk about Hamas' behaviour then I for one am not going to argue
about it. But you said they had not rescinded their published policy.
That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written
policies in order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist
behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’ behaviour is >> drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its policies,
published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. The >> thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th came >> about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the
planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed brigades >> and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was
financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching
policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show us the >> published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and explain why it >> isn’t being followed.
Nobody has suggested that Hamas are "lovely people", that's yet another
thing you have made up.
What you need to do, in order to support your new claim that Hamas has
a secret (rather than declared) policy of genocide is to explain why
Hamas' attacks can only be explained by an aim which is specifically genocidal, as opposed to, say, opposition to Israel's oppression of Palestinians and theft of Palestinian land.
In regard to Hamas, I’m reminded of Bert Harris’ comment that “They sowed
the wind, now they are reaping the whirlwind”.
That's not "Bert Harris' comment" that's a Biblical proverb...
about the bad behaviour of Israel.
On 17/07/2025 14:17, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 10:17 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 11:02 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 10:20, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Jul 2025 at 10:40:36 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
[…]
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had >>>>>>>>>> never been
rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, >>>>>>>>>> using
unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
Unfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their >>>>>>>>> declared aim
has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a proposal for >>>>>>>>> a Palestine
were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible point of >>>>>>>>> view, but
irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal aim has >>>>>>>>> never been
rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar. Unfortunately. I'd >>>>>>>>> check your
sources.
Ah! So for the last eight years Hamas never fired rockets into >>>>>>>> Israel,
armed themselves to the teeth, or planned, trained for, and executed >>>>>>>> the
October 7th massacre?
Why were they doing this? Was it just the excusable exuberance of >>>>>>>> well-armed fundamentalists on Hamas’ part?
If Hamas is armed like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and acts >>>>>>>> like a
terrorist, well, it’s a terrorist.
Someone is pulling your leg. Fortunately Israel is made of sterner >>>>>>>> stuff,
and doesn’t believe the window-dressing claptrap.
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about >>>>>>> Hamas'
behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about an a >>>>>>> false
statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to talk about >>>>>>> Hamas'
behaviour then I for one am not going to argue about it. But you said >>>>>>> they had
not rescinded their published policy. That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written
policies in
order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’
behaviour is
drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its
policies,
published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. >>>>>> The
thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th >>>>>> came
about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the >>>>>> planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed >>>>>> brigades
and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was >>>>>> financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching >>>>>> policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show >>>>>> us the
published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and explain >>>>>> why it
isn’t being followed.
In regard to Hamas, I’m reminded of Bert Harris’ comment that “They
sowed
the wind, now they are reaping the whirlwind”.
Or as Corporal Jones used to note: they don’t like it up ‘em.
But perhaps you've got this all wrong. Perhaps Hamas are delighted with >>>>> the current situation. Hamas, and for that matter the government of
Iran, don't give a shit about the slaughter of civilians perpetrated by >>>>> the IDF and latterly by the Americans. They may even be delighted.
That does not militate against a word of what Spike wrote.
What Spike wrote was, they don't like it up 'em.
He wrote a good deal more than that. Did you read it all?
They are reaping the
whirlwind. Who's "they" in that context? Babies and children? Did any
of them do anything to upset Israel?
Read all of what he wrote and the answer to that is there.
The answer is that in his opinion the sins of Hamas must be visited upon
the innocent people of Gaza, one hundred fold.
And that is a genocidal attitude.
Maybe you have misunderstood what he said. Or else, you don't much care
if genocide is inflicted on Gaza.
On 17/07/2025 16:06, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought
to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking about >>>>> religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them
talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it.
What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? Can
you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
Norman, how often do you masturbate?
Is that a question that you think offensive or inappropriate, or do you
see it as a perfectly reasonable topic for conversation? Not just in
usenet but perhaps in a pub with friends or at a dinner party?
As you are already aware, there isn't a single mention of non-Jewish people in that
document, >
And that's it. Nothing there (or anywhere else within the document) about elections or
voting rights.
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought
to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking about >>>> religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them talking >>>> about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it.
What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? Can
you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
Norman, how often do you masturbate?
Is that a question that you think offensive or inappropriate, or do you
see it as a perfectly reasonable topic for conversation? Not just in
usenet but perhaps in a pub with friends or at a dinner party?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about
Hamas' behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about
an a false statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to
talk about Hamas' behaviour then I for one am not going to argue
about it. But you said they had not rescinded their published policy.
That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written
policies in order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist
behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’ behaviour is
drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its policies, >>> published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. The >>> thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th came >>> about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the
planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed brigades >>> and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was
financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching
policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show
us the published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and
explain why it isn’t being followed.
Nobody has suggested that Hamas are "lovely people", that's yet another
thing you have made up.
OFFS…it wasn’t meant as a literal statement, it was meant to
illustrate the difference between Hamas’ policies and some people’s cosier view of the terrorist organisation.
What you need to do, in order to support your new claim that Hamas has
a secret (rather than declared) policy of genocide is to explain why
Hamas' attacks can only be explained by an aim which is specifically
genocidal, as opposed to, say, opposition to Israel's oppression of
Palestinians and theft of Palestinian land.
OFFS…One might imagine that if Israel was wiped off the map as a result of Hamas’ genocide policy, the alleged Israeli oppression of the palestinian people and theft of palestinian land would be non-issues. Hamas could then oppress the palestinian people in any way that it chose.
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought to be >>>>> within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking about >>>> religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them talking >>>> about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it.
What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? Can
you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
On 16/07/2025 07:28 PM, Owen Rees wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Jul 2025 at 13:54:07 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 04:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 09:16 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 07:08 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or
other legal
provision.
But that has not happened.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People >>>>>>>>>>> [...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the
Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies >>>>>>>>>>> the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was >>>>>>>>>>> passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two >>>>>>>>>>> abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and
declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles >>>>>>>>>>> and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to >>>>>>>>>>> fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state >>>>>>>>>>> unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Now let's see.
How about...If Israel is to function "as the Jews' nation-state", >>>>>>>>> as described in the above "Law", which you were so keen to hear >>>>>>>>> all about, then it's probably not a very good idea to enable large >>>>>>>>> numbers of people to vote, who are fundamentally opposed to the >>>>>>>>> very idea of a Jewish Nation State,
Something along those lines should do the trick, I'd imagine.
Where's the Statute / Bill / Act / whatever?
It ought to exist online if it exists at all.
As above
quote:
The Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic >>>>>>> Law that specifies the country's significance to the Jewish people. >>>>>>> It was passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against.
unquote.
Right.
So please quote the Section(s) of what must by now be an Act that say what
others (and
perhaps, though not necessarily, you) are saying it/they say(s).
Expressing the significance of Israel to Jews is hardly the same thing as
preventing
citizenship for non-Jews, as I know you will readily agree.
Roger's original point, to which you took such exemption was, if you >>>>> remember...
" it is a rather strongly-held principle of Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority >>>>> any time"
I merely want evidence to support that assertion, plus an explanation of >>>> how the "Nation-State Bill or Nationality Bill" makes provision that
citizenship denies citizenship of Israel to non-Jews.
That's reasonable enough, isn't it?
Granting citizenship to some non-Jews, is not the same thing as enfranchising
a non-Jewish majority any time. As I know you will readily agree.
What does that mean?
Do you have any figures with which to back it up?
Now comes the bit which you seem to be having such a problem with -
If Israel enfranchised a non-Jewish majority at any time ...
then that would immediately undermine the whole purpose of the setting >>>>> up of the State of Israel in the first place; as a Jewish State for >>>>> Jewish people
Says who?
And on what basis?
As before, if you're still having problems understanding what is, after >>>>> all, a fairly simple point, then I can only suggest you show this post to >>>>> somebody else; who may be able to better explain it to you, than I
apparently can.
All you (or anyone else) need to prove is that the claim referenced
above is given life in legislation passed by the Knesset.
No-one supporting that proposition seems even prepared to search for it >>>> and so the default position and working assumption has to be that no
such legislation exists (that despite the claims made for this or that >>>> Bill, as quoted above).
So show and tell this elusive legislative provision, or it doesn't exist. >>>>
I can't say fairer than that.
You truly are a unique individual; I doubt if there is anyone like you in the
whole world who really thinks Israel would allow a non-Jewish majority of >>> voters to exist in Israel. Unless you are arguing for the sake of arguing? >>>
If the Wikipedia article cited above is not sufficient, here is a link to
the Israeli government website.
https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/activity/documents/BasicLawsPDF/BasicLawNationState.pdf
1.c is perhaps the relevant paragraph
Quote
The realization of the right to national self-
determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the
Jewish People.
Unquote
For a more definitive statement we need someone who reads and understands
Hebrew as that is the language of the authoritative version.
As you are already aware, there isn't a single mention of non-Jewish
people in that document, except for the telling fact that it proclaims
that while Hebrew is the official language of the state of Israel,
Arabic (but not, you will note, English) has a special place within
Israel. It says:
QUOTE:
Language 4. (a) Hebrew is the language of the State.
(b) Arabic has a special status in the State. Regulation
of the use of Arabic in state institutions or in
contacts with them shall be prescribed by law.
(c) Nothing in this article shall compromise the status
given to the Arabic language in practice, before this
basic-law came into force.
ENDQUOTE
And that's it. Nothing there (or anywhere else within the document)
about elections or voting rights.
Thanks for quoting it. I suspect that you will have irritated a poster
or two by doing so.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdsb2hF5v81U1@mid.individual.net...
version.
As you are already aware, there isn't a single mention of non-Jewish people >> in that
document, >
And that's it. Nothing there (or anywhere else within the document) about
elections or
voting rights.
Because elections and voting rights are totally irrelevant; except
in a situation where there was a real possibility of a Non-Jewish
majority.
So that for the umpteenth time
The provisions enshrined in The Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill make it impossible for the State of Israel to ever contemplate suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority
Which is what Roger Hayter originally said.
And which you clearly misunderstood, at the time;
And which you have ever since, put up a totally unconvincing pretence
of still not understanding.
bb
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought
to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking about >>>> religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them talking >>>> about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it.
What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? Can
you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdsb2hF5v81U1@mid.individual.net...
version.
As you are already aware, there isn't a single mention of non-Jewish people in that
document, >
And that's it. Nothing there (or anywhere else within the document) about elections or
voting rights.
Because elections and voting rights are totally irrelevant;
On 7/17/25 16:44, The Todal wrote:
Norman, how often do you masturbate?
Is that a question that you think offensive or inappropriate, or do
you see it as a perfectly reasonable topic for conversation? Not just
in usenet but perhaps in a pub with friends or at a dinner party?
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update
ulm readers if they are interested.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:17, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 10:17 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 11:02 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 10:20, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Jul 2025 at 10:40:36 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
[…]
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had >>>>>>>>>>> never been
rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, >>>>>>>>>>> using
unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
Unfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their >>>>>>>>>> declared aim
has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a proposal for >>>>>>>>>> a Palestine
were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible point of >>>>>>>>>> view, but
irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal aim has >>>>>>>>>> never been
rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar. Unfortunately. I'd >>>>>>>>>> check your
sources.
Ah! So for the last eight years Hamas never fired rockets into >>>>>>>>> Israel,
armed themselves to the teeth, or planned, trained for, and executed >>>>>>>>> the
October 7th massacre?
Why were they doing this? Was it just the excusable exuberance of >>>>>>>>> well-armed fundamentalists on Hamas’ part?
If Hamas is armed like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and acts >>>>>>>>> like a
terrorist, well, it’s a terrorist.
Someone is pulling your leg. Fortunately Israel is made of sterner >>>>>>>>> stuff,
and doesn’t believe the window-dressing claptrap.
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about >>>>>>>> Hamas'
behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about an a >>>>>>>> false
statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to talk about >>>>>>>> Hamas'
behaviour then I for one am not going to argue about it. But you said >>>>>>>> they had
not rescinded their published policy. That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written
policies in
order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’
behaviour is
drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its
policies,
published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. >>>>>>> The
thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th >>>>>>> came
about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the >>>>>>> planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed >>>>>>> brigades
and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was >>>>>>> financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching >>>>>>> policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show >>>>>>> us the
published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and explain >>>>>>> why it
isn’t being followed.
In regard to Hamas, I’m reminded of Bert Harris’ comment that “They
sowed
the wind, now they are reaping the whirlwind”.
Or as Corporal Jones used to note: they don’t like it up ‘em.
But perhaps you've got this all wrong. Perhaps Hamas are delighted with >>>>>> the current situation. Hamas, and for that matter the government of >>>>>> Iran, don't give a shit about the slaughter of civilians perpetrated by >>>>>> the IDF and latterly by the Americans. They may even be delighted.
That does not militate against a word of what Spike wrote.
What Spike wrote was, they don't like it up 'em.
He wrote a good deal more than that. Did you read it all?
They are reaping the
whirlwind. Who's "they" in that context? Babies and children? Did any >>>> of them do anything to upset Israel?
Read all of what he wrote and the answer to that is there.
The answer is that in his opinion the sins of Hamas must be visited upon
the innocent people of Gaza, one hundred fold.
‘The answer’ is that, if you thought about it, Hamas sowed the wind, and have reaped the whirlwind. The attribution of the word ‘they’ follows the normal usage in English, through this part of the this thread.
The civilians in Gaza (with a handful of exceptions) did not sow the wind, Hamas did.
Trace the conversation above back to where I referred to the attack on October 7th and follow it from there.
And that is a genocidal attitude.
Not when applied to Hamas.
Maybe you have misunderstood what he said. Or else, you don't much care
if genocide is inflicted on Gaza.
I’m afraid that you seem to have misread or misunderstood this part of the discussion.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/07/2025 07:28 PM, Owen Rees wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Jul 2025 at 13:54:07 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 04:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/07/2025 09:16 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 07:08 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 12/07/2025 10:18 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
On 11/07/2025 10:35 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Indeed. But it is a rather strongly-held principle of the Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority any time
soon.
No doubt you will be able to prove that by reference to a Statute or
other legal
provision.
But that has not happened.
quote:
Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People >>>>>>>>>>>> [...]:informally known as the Nation-State Bill or the >>>>>>>>>>>> Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic Law that specifies >>>>>>>>>>>> the country's significance to the Jewish people. It was >>>>>>>>>>>> passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against, and two >>>>>>>>>>>> abstentions-on 19 July 2018 and is largely symbolic and >>>>>>>>>>>> declarative in nature.The law outlines a number of roles >>>>>>>>>>>> and responsibilities by which Israel is bound in order to >>>>>>>>>>>> fulfill the purpose of serving as the Jews' nation-state >>>>>>>>>>>> unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Law:_Israel_as_the_Nation-State_of_the_Jewish_People
What is the relevance of that Wikipedia citation?
Now let's see.
How about...If Israel is to function "as the Jews' nation-state", >>>>>>>>>> as described in the above "Law", which you were so keen to hear >>>>>>>>>> all about, then it's probably not a very good idea to enable large >>>>>>>>>> numbers of people to vote, who are fundamentally opposed to the >>>>>>>>>> very idea of a Jewish Nation State,
Something along those lines should do the trick, I'd imagine.
Where's the Statute / Bill / Act / whatever?
It ought to exist online if it exists at all.
As above
quote:
The Nation-State Bill or the Nationality Bill,[1] is an Israeli Basic >>>>>>>> Law that specifies the country's significance to the Jewish people. >>>>>>>> It was passed by the Knesset-with 62 in favour, 55 against.
unquote.
Right.
So please quote the Section(s) of what must by now be an Act that say what
others (and
perhaps, though not necessarily, you) are saying it/they say(s). >>>>>>> Expressing the significance of Israel to Jews is hardly the same thing as
preventing
citizenship for non-Jews, as I know you will readily agree.
Roger's original point, to which you took such exemption was, if you >>>>>> remember...
" it is a rather strongly-held principle of Israeli state that
they are not planning on suddenly enfranchising a non-Jewish majority >>>>>> any time"
I merely want evidence to support that assertion, plus an explanation of >>>>> how the "Nation-State Bill or Nationality Bill" makes provision that >>>>> citizenship denies citizenship of Israel to non-Jews.
That's reasonable enough, isn't it?
Granting citizenship to some non-Jews, is not the same thing as enfranchising
a non-Jewish majority any time. As I know you will readily agree.
What does that mean?
Do you have any figures with which to back it up?
Now comes the bit which you seem to be having such a problem with - >>>>>>
If Israel enfranchised a non-Jewish majority at any time ...
then that would immediately undermine the whole purpose of the setting >>>>>> up of the State of Israel in the first place; as a Jewish State for >>>>>> Jewish people
Says who?
And on what basis?
As before, if you're still having problems understanding what is, after >>>>>> all, a fairly simple point, then I can only suggest you show this post to
somebody else; who may be able to better explain it to you, than I >>>>>> apparently can.
All you (or anyone else) need to prove is that the claim referenced
above is given life in legislation passed by the Knesset.
No-one supporting that proposition seems even prepared to search for it >>>>> and so the default position and working assumption has to be that no >>>>> such legislation exists (that despite the claims made for this or that >>>>> Bill, as quoted above).
So show and tell this elusive legislative provision, or it doesn't exist. >>>>>
I can't say fairer than that.
You truly are a unique individual; I doubt if there is anyone like you in the
whole world who really thinks Israel would allow a non-Jewish majority of >>>> voters to exist in Israel. Unless you are arguing for the sake of arguing?
If the Wikipedia article cited above is not sufficient, here is a link to >>> the Israeli government website.
https://main.knesset.gov.il/EN/activity/documents/BasicLawsPDF/BasicLawNationState.pdf
1.c is perhaps the relevant paragraph
Quote
The realization of the right to national self-
determination in the State of Israel is exclusive to the
Jewish People.
Unquote
For a more definitive statement we need someone who reads and understands >>> Hebrew as that is the language of the authoritative version.
As you are already aware, there isn't a single mention of non-Jewish
people in that document, except for the telling fact that it proclaims
that while Hebrew is the official language of the state of Israel,
Arabic (but not, you will note, English) has a special place within
Israel. It says:
“exclusive to the Jewish People” says that non-Jewish People are excluded.
QUOTE:
Language 4. (a) Hebrew is the language of the State.
(b) Arabic has a special status in the State. Regulation
of the use of Arabic in state institutions or in
contacts with them shall be prescribed by law.
(c) Nothing in this article shall compromise the status
given to the Arabic language in practice, before this
basic-law came into force.
ENDQUOTE
And that's it. Nothing there (or anywhere else within the document)
about elections or voting rights.
Thanks for quoting it. I suspect that you will have irritated a poster
or two by doing so.
The whirlwind has been inflicted on the citizens of Gaza, while Hamas continue to harass and harry the IDF soldiers and make political capital
out of the IDF genocide.
On 17/07/2025 04:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought
to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking about >>>>> religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them
talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it.
What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? Can
you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
I don't care to be regaled by work colleagues, male or famale, with
details of their sexual activities.
Is that in any way unacceptable?
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update
ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need to take.
On 17/07/2025 05:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdsb2hF5v81U1@mid.individual.net...
version.
As you are already aware, there isn't a single mention of non-Jewish people in that
document, >
And that's it. Nothing there (or anywhere else within the document) about elections
or
voting rights.
Because elections and voting rights are totally irrelevant;
Clearly NOT ierrelavent to the posters who insited that Israel will seek to prevent a
non-Jewish population from being able to vote (or words to exactly that effect,
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update
ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need >> to take.
The result was *negative*.
HTH
(As always)
On 18/07/2025 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 04:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought >>>>>>> to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking
about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them
talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it.
What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? Can
you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
I don't care to be regaled by work colleagues, male or famale, with
details of their sexual activities.
Is that in any way unacceptable?
The question was *why* you dislike it or want it to be avoided. What is
it within you that makes it distasteful?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdtg6vFbvjhU1@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:10 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdsb2hF5v81U1@mid.individual.net...
version.
As you are already aware, there isn't a single mention of non-Jewish people in that
document, >
And that's it. Nothing there (or anywhere else within the document) about elections
or
voting rights.
Because elections and voting rights are totally irrelevant;
Clearly NOT ierrelavent to the posters who insited that Israel will seek to prevent a
non-Jewish population from being able to vote (or words to exactly that effect,
Ah right !
So now you're now longer arguing with Roger Hayter or myself, who you
now appear to be admitting were right all along, but with these
*other posters* who were arguing for something completely different
and got you all confused !
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update
ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need to take.
The result was *negative*.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 00:52:01 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:04, Spike wrote:
‘The answer’ is that, if you thought about it, Hamas sowed the wind, and
have reaped the whirlwind. The attribution of the word ‘they’ follows the
normal usage in English, through this part of the this thread.
Hamas haven't reaped any whirlwind. That's where you've gone wrong.
The whirlwind has been inflicted on the citizens of Gaza, while Hamas
continue to harass and harry the IDF soldiers and make political capital
out of the IDF genocide.
... and continue to hold hostages including the bodies of dead
hostages and fire missiles into civilian areas though their stock of
the latter seem much depleted.
On 2025-07-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about >>>>> Hamas' behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about
an a false statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to >>>>> talk about Hamas' behaviour then I for one am not going to argue
about it. But you said they had not rescinded their published policy. >>>>> That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written
policies in order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist
behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’ behaviour is
drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its policies, >>>> published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. The >>>> thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th came >>>> about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the
planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed brigades
and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was
financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching
policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show
us the published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and
explain why it isn’t being followed.
Nobody has suggested that Hamas are "lovely people", that's yet another
thing you have made up.
OFFS…it wasn’t meant as a literal statement, it was meant to
illustrate the difference between Hamas’ policies and some people’s
cosier view of the terrorist organisation.
Given nobody has expressed anything remotely resembling a "cosy view"
of Hamas... that's yet another thing you have made up.
What you need to do, in order to support your new claim that Hamas has
a secret (rather than declared) policy of genocide is to explain why
Hamas' attacks can only be explained by an aim which is specifically
genocidal, as opposed to, say, opposition to Israel's oppression of
Palestinians and theft of Palestinian land.
OFFS…One might imagine that if Israel was wiped off the map as a result of >> Hamas’ genocide policy, the alleged Israeli oppression of the palestinian >> people and theft of palestinian land would be non-issues. Hamas could then >> oppress the palestinian people in any way that it chose.
Ok. What's your point? If France wiped out Belgium then they could take
over their land and resources, does that mean France harbours genocidal intentions against Belgium?
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about >>>>>> Hamas' behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about >>>>>> an a false statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to >>>>>> talk about Hamas' behaviour then I for one am not going to argue
about it. But you said they had not rescinded their published policy. >>>>>> That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written
policies in order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist
behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’ behaviour is
drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its policies, >>>>> published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. The
thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th came
about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the
planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed brigades
and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was
financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching >>>>> policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show >>>>> us the published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and
explain why it isn’t being followed.
Nobody has suggested that Hamas are "lovely people", that's yet another >>>> thing you have made up.
OFFS…it wasn’t meant as a literal statement, it was meant to
illustrate the difference between Hamas’ policies and some people’s
cosier view of the terrorist organisation.
Given nobody has expressed anything remotely resembling a "cosy view"
of Hamas... that's yet another thing you have made up.
Surely you jest. The group is riddled with cosy views of Hamas. The uncritically-regurgitated propaganda and one-sided narrow perspective of
the terrorist organisation is simply laughable, to say nothing of the hyperbole.
What you need to do, in order to support your new claim that Hamas has >>>> a secret (rather than declared) policy of genocide is to explain why
Hamas' attacks can only be explained by an aim which is specifically
genocidal, as opposed to, say, opposition to Israel's oppression of
Palestinians and theft of Palestinian land.
OFFS…One might imagine that if Israel was wiped off the map as a result of
Hamas’ genocide policy, the alleged Israeli oppression of the palestinian >>> people and theft of palestinian land would be non-issues. Hamas could then >>> oppress the palestinian people in any way that it chose.
Ok. What's your point? If France wiped out Belgium then they could take
over their land and resources, does that mean France harbours genocidal
intentions against Belgium?
Now you are just being silly.
On 17/07/2025 17:04, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:17, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 10:17 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 11:02 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 10:20, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Jul 2025 at 10:40:36 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
[…]
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had >>>>>>>>>>>> never been
rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, >>>>>>>>>>>> using
unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
Unfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their >>>>>>>>>>> declared aim
has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a proposal for >>>>>>>>>>> a Palestine
were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible point of >>>>>>>>>>> view, but
irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal aim has >>>>>>>>>>> never been
rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar. Unfortunately. I'd >>>>>>>>>>> check your
sources.
Ah! So for the last eight years Hamas never fired rockets into >>>>>>>>>> Israel,
armed themselves to the teeth, or planned, trained for, and executed >>>>>>>>>> the
October 7th massacre?
Why were they doing this? Was it just the excusable exuberance of >>>>>>>>>> well-armed fundamentalists on Hamas’ part?
If Hamas is armed like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and acts >>>>>>>>>> like a
terrorist, well, it’s a terrorist.
Someone is pulling your leg. Fortunately Israel is made of sterner >>>>>>>>>> stuff,
and doesn’t believe the window-dressing claptrap.
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about >>>>>>>>> Hamas'
behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about an a >>>>>>>>> false
statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to talk about
Hamas'
behaviour then I for one am not going to argue about it. But you said >>>>>>>>> they had
not rescinded their published policy. That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written >>>>>>>>> policies in
order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’ >>>>>>>> behaviour is
drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its >>>>>>>> policies,
published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. >>>>>>>> The
thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th >>>>>>>> came
about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the >>>>>>>> planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed >>>>>>>> brigades
and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was >>>>>>>> financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching >>>>>>>> policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show >>>>>>>> us the
published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and explain >>>>>>>> why it
isn’t being followed.
In regard to Hamas, I’m reminded of Bert Harris’ comment that “They
sowed
the wind, now they are reaping the whirlwind”.
Or as Corporal Jones used to note: they don’t like it up ‘em.
But perhaps you've got this all wrong. Perhaps Hamas are delighted with >>>>>>> the current situation. Hamas, and for that matter the government of >>>>>>> Iran, don't give a shit about the slaughter of civilians perpetrated by >>>>>>> the IDF and latterly by the Americans. They may even be delighted. >>>>>>That does not militate against a word of what Spike wrote.
What Spike wrote was, they don't like it up 'em.
He wrote a good deal more than that. Did you read it all?
They are reaping the
whirlwind. Who's "they" in that context? Babies and children? Did any >>>>> of them do anything to upset Israel?
Read all of what he wrote and the answer to that is there.
The answer is that in his opinion the sins of Hamas must be visited upon >>> the innocent people of Gaza, one hundred fold.
‘The answer’ is that, if you thought about it, Hamas sowed the wind, and >> have reaped the whirlwind. The attribution of the word ‘they’ follows the
normal usage in English, through this part of the this thread.
Hamas haven't reaped any whirlwind. That's where you've gone wrong.
The whirlwind has been inflicted on the citizens of Gaza, while Hamas continue to harass and harry the IDF soldiers and make political capital
out of the IDF genocide.
And Israel is also reaping a whirlwind. It is now more insecure than
ever, while its government pretends that it is more secure than ever.
The civilians in Gaza (with a handful of exceptions) did not sow the wind, >> Hamas did.
Trace the conversation above back to where I referred to the attack on
October 7th and follow it from there.
And that is a genocidal attitude.
Not when applied to Hamas.
Maybe you have misunderstood what he said. Or else, you don't much care
if genocide is inflicted on Gaza.
I’m afraid that you seem to have misread or misunderstood this part of the >> discussion.
I think you've wholly misunderstood what's happening in Gaza.
On 18 Jul 2025 at 09:44:01 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update >>>> ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need >>> to take.
The result was *negative*.
HTH
(As always)
There's still the biopsy to recover from!
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update >>>> ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need to take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must have been something
that warranted a biopsy.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:3022448416.3036ef28@uninhabited.net...
On 18 Jul 2025 at 09:44:01 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update >>>>> ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need
to take.
The result was *negative*.
HTH
(As always)
There's still the biopsy to recover from!
Recovering from mine * was a matter of getting down off of the table,
going into the cubicle, getting dressed, saying "thank you", walking
out and riding approx 10 miles home, on the bike **
bb
* Negative. A probe which once inserted took pinprick sized samples
As you will doubtless be aware, there is a paucity of nerve endings throughout the digestive tract; as otherwise this would make digestion uncomfortable, if not impossible. So that apart from stretching the
whole process was relatively lacking in sensation.
** Hard leather saddles can give rise to elevated PSA levels being
discovered purely by accident; and the totally unnecessary, but
nevertheless reassuring, biopsies which may result.
On 18/07/2025 08:49 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 04:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought >>>>>>>> to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking >>>>>>> about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them
talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it.
What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? Can >>>> you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
I don't care to be regaled by work colleagues, male or famale, with
details of their sexual activities.
Is that in any way unacceptable?
The question was *why* you dislike it or want it to be avoided. What is
it within you that makes it distasteful?
That's dificult to say. If not actually innate, it's probably a result
of a moral upbringing.
Please tell me why it's unnacceptable.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:mdus0sFit5fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update >>>>> ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need to take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must have been something
that warranted a biopsy.
High PSA readings, which can give rise to biopsies,,"just to be on the safe side"
are noted for giving false positives in some situations.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:3022448416.3036ef28@uninhabited.net...
On 18 Jul 2025 at 09:44:01 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>> "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update >>>>> ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need
to take.
The result was *negative*.
There's still the biopsy to recover from!
Recovering from mine * was a matter of getting down off of the table,
going into the cubicle, getting dressed, saying "thank you", walking
out and riding approx 10 miles home, on the bike **
* Negative. A probe which once inserted took pinprick sized samples
As you will doubtless be aware, there is a paucity of nerve endings throughout the digestive tract; as otherwise this would make digestion uncomfortable, if not impossible.
So that apart from stretching the
whole process was relatively lacking in sensation.
** Hard leather saddles can give rise to elevated PSA levels being
discovered purely by accident; and the totally unnecessary, but
nevertheless reassuring, biopsies which may result.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:mdus0sFit5fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update >>>>> ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need to take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must have been something
that warranted a biopsy.
High PSA readings, which can give rise to biopsies,,"just to be on the safe side"
are noted for giving false positives in some situations.
On 18 Jul 2025 at 18:03:47 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3022448416.3036ef28@uninhabited.net...
On 18 Jul 2025 at 09:44:01 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update >>>>>> ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need
to take.
The result was *negative*.
HTH
(As always)
There's still the biopsy to recover from!
Recovering from mine * was a matter of getting down off of the table,
going into the cubicle, getting dressed, saying "thank you", walking
out and riding approx 10 miles home, on the bike **
bb
* Negative. A probe which once inserted took pinprick sized samples
As you will doubtless be aware, there is a paucity of nerve endings
throughout the digestive tract; as otherwise this would make digestion
uncomfortable, if not impossible. So that apart from stretching the
whole process was relatively lacking in sensation.
If you keep your prostate in your digestive tract you've been doing it wrong.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:3022448416.3036ef28@uninhabited.net...
On 18 Jul 2025 at 09:44:01 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update >>>>> ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need
to take.
The result was *negative*.
HTH
(As always)
There's still the biopsy to recover from!
Recovering from mine * was a matter of getting down off of the table,
going into the cubicle, getting dressed, saying "thank you", walking
out and riding approx 10 miles home, on the bike **
bb
* Negative. A probe which once inserted took pinprick sized samples
As you will doubtless be aware, there is a paucity of nerve endings throughout the digestive tract; as otherwise this would make digestion uncomfortable, if not impossible. So that apart from stretching the
whole process was relatively lacking in sensation.
** Hard leather saddles can give rise to elevated PSA levels being
discovered purely by accident; and the totally unnecessary, but
nevertheless reassuring, biopsies which may result.
On 2025-07-18, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about >>>>>>> Hamas' behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about >>>>>>> an a false statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to >>>>>>> talk about Hamas' behaviour then I for one am not going to argue >>>>>>> about it. But you said they had not rescinded their published policy. >>>>>>> That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written
policies in order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist
behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’ behaviour is
drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its policies, >>>>>> published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along. The
thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th came
about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the >>>>>> planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed brigades
and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was >>>>>> financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching >>>>>> policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show >>>>>> us the published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and >>>>>> explain why it isn’t being followed.
Nobody has suggested that Hamas are "lovely people", that's yet another >>>>> thing you have made up.
OFFS…it wasn’t meant as a literal statement, it was meant to
illustrate the difference between Hamas’ policies and some people’s >>>> cosier view of the terrorist organisation.
Given nobody has expressed anything remotely resembling a "cosy view"
of Hamas... that's yet another thing you have made up.
Surely you jest. The group is riddled with cosy views of Hamas. The
uncritically-regurgitated propaganda and one-sided narrow perspective of
the terrorist organisation is simply laughable, to say nothing of the
hyperbole.
None of that is in the slightest bit true.
What you need to do, in order to support your new claim that Hamas has >>>>> a secret (rather than declared) policy of genocide is to explain why >>>>> Hamas' attacks can only be explained by an aim which is specifically >>>>> genocidal, as opposed to, say, opposition to Israel's oppression of
Palestinians and theft of Palestinian land.
OFFS…One might imagine that if Israel was wiped off the map as a result of
Hamas’ genocide policy, the alleged Israeli oppression of the palestinian
people and theft of palestinian land would be non-issues. Hamas could then >>>> oppress the palestinian people in any way that it chose.
Ok. What's your point? If France wiped out Belgium then they could take
over their land and resources, does that mean France harbours genocidal
intentions against Belgium?
Now you are just being silly.
It's called reductio ad absurdum, you can look it up.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:04, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:17, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 10:17 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 11:02 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 10:20, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Jul 2025 at 10:40:36 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
[…]
Quite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had >>>>>>>>>>>>> never been
rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the map, >>>>>>>>>>>>> using
unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
Unfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their >>>>>>>>>>>> declared aim
has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a proposal for >>>>>>>>>>>> a Palestine
were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible point of >>>>>>>>>>>> view, but
irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal aim has
never been
rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar. Unfortunately. I'd >>>>>>>>>>>> check your
sources.
Ah! So for the last eight years Hamas never fired rockets into >>>>>>>>>>> Israel,
armed themselves to the teeth, or planned, trained for, and executed
the
October 7th massacre?
Why were they doing this? Was it just the excusable exuberance of >>>>>>>>>>> well-armed fundamentalists on Hamas’ part?
If Hamas is armed like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, and acts
like a
terrorist, well, it’s a terrorist.
Someone is pulling your leg. Fortunately Israel is made of sterner >>>>>>>>>>> stuff,
and doesn’t believe the window-dressing claptrap.
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with you about >>>>>>>>>> Hamas'
behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about an a >>>>>>>>>> false
statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to talk about
Hamas'
behaviour then I for one am not going to argue about it. But you said
they had
not rescinded their published policy. That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written >>>>>>>>>> policies in
order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist behaviour.
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’ >>>>>>>>> behaviour is
drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its >>>>>>>>> policies,
published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go along.
The
thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of October 7th >>>>>>>>> came
about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did the >>>>>>>>> planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight armed >>>>>>>>> brigades
and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, it was >>>>>>>>> financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an overarching >>>>>>>>> policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you could show >>>>>>>>> us the
published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and explain >>>>>>>>> why it
isn’t being followed.
In regard to Hamas, I’m reminded of Bert Harris’ comment that “They
sowed
the wind, now they are reaping the whirlwind”.
Or as Corporal Jones used to note: they don’t like it up ‘em.
But perhaps you've got this all wrong. Perhaps Hamas are delighted withThat does not militate against a word of what Spike wrote.
the current situation. Hamas, and for that matter the government of >>>>>>>> Iran, don't give a shit about the slaughter of civilians perpetrated by
the IDF and latterly by the Americans. They may even be delighted. >>>>>>>
What Spike wrote was, they don't like it up 'em.
He wrote a good deal more than that. Did you read it all?
They are reaping the
whirlwind. Who's "they" in that context? Babies and children? Did any >>>>>> of them do anything to upset Israel?
Read all of what he wrote and the answer to that is there.
The answer is that in his opinion the sins of Hamas must be visited upon >>>> the innocent people of Gaza, one hundred fold.
‘The answer’ is that, if you thought about it, Hamas sowed the wind, and
have reaped the whirlwind. The attribution of the word ‘they’ follows the
normal usage in English, through this part of the this thread.
Hamas haven't reaped any whirlwind. That's where you've gone wrong.
The whirlwind has been inflicted on the citizens of Gaza, while Hamas
continue to harass and harry the IDF soldiers and make political capital
out of the IDF genocide.
And Israel is also reaping a whirlwind. It is now more insecure than
ever, while its government pretends that it is more secure than ever.
The civilians in Gaza (with a handful of exceptions) did not sow the wind, >>> Hamas did.
Trace the conversation above back to where I referred to the attack on
October 7th and follow it from there.
And that is a genocidal attitude.
Not when applied to Hamas.
Maybe you have misunderstood what he said. Or else, you don't much care >>>> if genocide is inflicted on Gaza.
I’m afraid that you seem to have misread or misunderstood this part of the
discussion.
I think you've wholly misunderstood what's happening in Gaza.
And in my turn, I think you have totally failed to grasp what is happening
in Gaza.
Try this for non-BBC reporting:
<https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/battling-survive-hamas-faces-defiant-clans-doubts-over-iran-2025-06-27/>
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-18, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Given nobody has expressed anything remotely resembling a "cosy view"
of Hamas... that's yet another thing you have made up.
Surely you jest. The group is riddled with cosy views of Hamas. The
uncritically-regurgitated propaganda and one-sided narrow perspective of >>> the terrorist organisation is simply laughable, to say nothing of the
hyperbole.
None of that is in the slightest bit true.
You jest, surely.
But I’m happy to let the independent thinkers draw their own conclusions.
On 19/07/2025 11:01, Spike wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-07-18, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Given nobody has expressed anything remotely resembling a "cosy view" >>>>> of Hamas... that's yet another thing you have made up.
Surely you jest. The group is riddled with cosy views of Hamas. The
uncritically-regurgitated propaganda and one-sided narrow perspective of >>>> the terrorist organisation is simply laughable, to say nothing of the
hyperbole.
None of that is in the slightest bit true.
You jest, surely.
But I’m happy to let the independent thinkers draw their own conclusions.
I think you are the most independent of the thinkers here, an
achievement that few would want to emulate.
I'm still waiting to see examples of "cosy views" of Hamas. Do they have
a book club, perhaps, or a knitting circle?
On 18/07/2025 16:23, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:04, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:17, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 10:17 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 13:55, JNugent wrote:
On 16/07/2025 11:02 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/07/2025 10:20, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Jul 2025 at 10:40:36 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025 at 11:10:45 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
[…]
The key issue linking this is the authority from which Hamas’ >>>>>>>>>> behaviour isQuite how you square this with Hamas’ declared aim, which had >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never been
rescinded, of wiping Israel and its Jewish citizens of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> map,
using
unIslamic methods, is quite unclear.
Unfortunately, whoever told you this was a liar, because their >>>>>>>>>>>>> declared aim
has been comprehensibly rescinded and replaced with a >>>>>>>>>>>>> proposal for
a Palestine
were Jews and Arabs could live together.
You may not believe their intentions - that is a credible >>>>>>>>>>>>> point of
view, but
irrelevant. The statement you quoted, that Hamas' genocidal >>>>>>>>>>>>> aim has
never been
rescinded, is simply the statement of a liar.
Unfortunately. I'd
check your
sources.
Ah! So for the last eight years Hamas never fired rockets into >>>>>>>>>>>> Israel,
armed themselves to the teeth, or planned, trained for, and >>>>>>>>>>>> executed
the
October 7th massacre?
Why were they doing this? Was it just the excusable
exuberance of
well-armed fundamentalists on Hamas’ part?
If Hamas is armed like a terrorist, talks like a terrorist, >>>>>>>>>>>> and acts
like a
terrorist, well, it’s a terrorist.
Someone is pulling your leg. Fortunately Israel is made of >>>>>>>>>>>> sterner
stuff,
and doesn’t believe the window-dressing claptrap.
I think you have two things confused. I did not argue with >>>>>>>>>>> you about
Hamas'
behaviour. I have indeed noticed it. I argued with you about >>>>>>>>>>> an a
false
statement about Hamas' published *policy*. If you want to >>>>>>>>>>> talk about
Hamas'
behaviour then I for one am not going to argue about it. But >>>>>>>>>>> you said
they had
not rescinded their published policy. That is false.
You really do not need to make false statements about written >>>>>>>>>>> policies in
order to make your point about Hamas' terrorist behaviour. >>>>>>>>>>
drawn; the two are inextricably connected which stems from its >>>>>>>>>> policies,
published or otherwise. Hamas isn’t making this up as they go >>>>>>>>>> along.
The
thousands of rockets launched at Israel on the morning of
October 7th
came
about as the result of a probably long-standing policy. So did >>>>>>>>>> the
planning, training, and execution of the attack by the eight >>>>>>>>>> armed
brigades
and sundry hangers-on. None of this was made up on the hoof, >>>>>>>>>> it was
financed and planned over a couple of years as part of an
overarching
policy, viz one of the destruction of Israel. Perhaps you
could show
us the
published Hamas ‘what lovely people we are’ document and explain >>>>>>>>>> why it
isn’t being followed.
In regard to Hamas, I’m reminded of Bert Harris’ comment that >>>>>>>>>> “They
sowed
the wind, now they are reaping the whirlwind”.
That does not militate against a word of what Spike wrote.Or as Corporal Jones used to note: they don’t like it up ‘em. >>>>But perhaps you've got this all wrong. Perhaps Hamas are
delighted with
the current situation. Hamas, and for that matter the
government of
Iran, don't give a shit about the slaughter of civilians
perpetrated by
the IDF and latterly by the Americans. They may even be delighted. >>>>>>>>
What Spike wrote was, they don't like it up 'em.
He wrote a good deal more than that. Did you read it all?
They are reaping the
whirlwind. Who's "they" in that context? Babies and children?
Did any
of them do anything to upset Israel?
Read all of what he wrote and the answer to that is there.
The answer is that in his opinion the sins of Hamas must be visited
upon
the innocent people of Gaza, one hundred fold.
‘The answer’ is that, if you thought about it, Hamas sowed the wind, >>>> and
have reaped the whirlwind. The attribution of the word ‘they’
follows the
normal usage in English, through this part of the this thread.
Hamas haven't reaped any whirlwind. That's where you've gone wrong.
The whirlwind has been inflicted on the citizens of Gaza, while Hamas
continue to harass and harry the IDF soldiers and make political capital >>> out of the IDF genocide.
And Israel is also reaping a whirlwind. It is now more insecure than
ever, while its government pretends that it is more secure than ever.
The civilians in Gaza (with a handful of exceptions) did not sow the
wind,
Hamas did.
Trace the conversation above back to where I referred to the attack on >>>> October 7th and follow it from there.
And that is a genocidal attitude.
Not when applied to Hamas.
Maybe you have misunderstood what he said. Or else, you don't much
care
if genocide is inflicted on Gaza.
I’m afraid that you seem to have misread or misunderstood this part
of the
discussion.
I think you've wholly misunderstood what's happening in Gaza.
And in my turn, I think you have totally failed to grasp what is
happening
in Gaza.
Try this for non-BBC reporting:
<https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/battling-survive-hamas-
faces-defiant-clans-doubts-over-iran-2025-06-27/>
I think what you need to remember is that the Israeli government does
not permit journalists to go to Gaza, interview soldiers or terrorists
and make their own judgments. Instead, Israel drip-feeds its own
propaganda to the likes of Reuters.
The notion of "the enemy is on the run, we're about to achieve a
magnificent victory" has been used in various wars in the past notably Vietnam and, more recently, Ukraine.
On 18/07/2025 18:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mdus0sFit5fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update >>>>>> ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need to
take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must have been
something
that warranted a biopsy.
High PSA readings, which can give rise to biopsies,,"just to be on the safe side"
are noted for giving false positives in some situations.
And there must have been something that warranted a PSA test. As far as I'm aware,
it's not just part of the ordinary, routine blood test.
On 18/07/2025 11:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:49 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 04:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? Can >>>>> you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought >>>>>>>>> to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking >>>>>>>> about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them >>>>>>>> talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it. >>>>>
I don't care to be regaled by work colleagues, male or famale, with
details of their sexual activities.
Is that in any way unacceptable?
The question was *why* you dislike it or want it to be avoided. What is >>> it within you that makes it distasteful?
That's dificult to say. If not actually innate, it's probably a result
of a moral upbringing.
Please tell me why it's unnacceptable.
It's just not open-minded. Why should honest discussion of anything be off-limits in a free society?
On 18/07/2025 18:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mdus0sFit5fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to
update
ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take
or need to take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must
have been something
that warranted a biopsy.
High PSA readings, which can give rise to biopsies,,"just to be on the
safe side"
are noted for giving false positives in some situations.
Indeed.
"some experts have suggested that PSA testing causes more harm than
good, saying it can lead to unnecessary biopsies and therapies for
cancers that actually don’t need to be treated."
https://www.mskcc.org/news/myths-about-psa-tests-and-prostate-cancer-screening
On 18/07/2025 18:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mdus0sFit5fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to
update
ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take
or need to take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must
have been something
that warranted a biopsy.
High PSA readings, which can give rise to biopsies,,"just to be on the
safe side"
are noted for giving false positives in some situations.
And there must have been something that warranted a PSA test. As far as
I'm aware, it's not just part of the ordinary, routine blood test.
On 18/07/2025 08:49 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 04:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking >>>>>>> about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them
talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it.
What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? Can >>>> you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
I don't care to be regaled by work colleagues, male or famale, with
details of their sexual activities.
Is that in any way unacceptable?
The question was *why* you dislike it or want it to be avoided. What is
it within you that makes it distasteful?
That's dificult to say. If not actually innate, it's probably a result
of a moral upbringing.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:04, Spike wrote:
The civilians in Gaza (with a handful of exceptions) did not sow the wind, >>> Hamas did.
Trace the conversation above back to where I referred to the attack on
October 7th and follow it from there.
And that is a genocidal attitude.
Not when applied to Hamas.
Maybe you have misunderstood what he said. Or else, you don't much care >>>> if genocide is inflicted on Gaza.
I’m afraid that you seem to have misread or misunderstood this part of the
discussion.
I think you've wholly misunderstood what's happening in Gaza.
And in my turn, I think you have totally failed to grasp what is happening
in Gaza.
Try this for non-BBC reporting:
<https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/battling-survive-hamas-faces-defiant-clans-doubts-over-iran-2025-06-27/>
On 7/18/25 18:03, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3022448416.3036ef28@uninhabited.net...
On 18 Jul 2025 at 09:44:01 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have
discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update >>>>>> ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need
to take.
The result was *negative*.
HTH
(As always)
There's still the biopsy to recover from!
Recovering from mine * was a matter of getting down off of the table,
going into the cubicle, getting dressed, saying "thank you", walking
out and riding approx 10 miles home, on the bike **
You are clearly made of sterner stuff than me.
bb
* Negative. A probe which once inserted took pinprick sized samples
17 "cores" in my case.
The biopsy needle had diameter 1,2mm (18G). A blood sample needle is 0.9mm, a vaccination needle 0.5mm.
A blood donor needle is bigger.
As you will doubtless be aware, there is a paucity of nerve endings
throughout the digestive tract; as otherwise this would make digestion
uncomfortable, if not impossible. So that apart from stretching the
whole process was relatively lacking in sensation.
The prostate or area around it has sensation. I could describe the sensation of an
ejaculation when suffering prostatitis. Suffice it to say, the phrase "Orgasm of Pain"
is a good description. I didn't experience this pain after the biopsy, possibly because
I avoided that kind of activity for at least a week.
Even after a week, ejaculation was visually more "Hammer House of Horror" than
"Pornhub".
Dunno about your nerve theory. I certainly felt the anaesthetic needles.
** Hard leather saddles can give rise to elevated PSA levels being
discovered purely by accident; and the totally unnecessary, but
nevertheless reassuring, biopsies which may result.
Most bike saddles can cause problems, they are better now, but not perfect.
I had an MRI as well as the raised PSA, the problem is they both can indicate recent
prostatitis or cancer. I'm not clear what additional diagnostic advantage the MRI gave.
I knew I had recently had acute prostatitis.
I didn't get to read the MRI report until after the biopsy, it actually indicated
lowish risk. If I had read it, I think I would have asked more strongly to wait for
another PSA test. However, it is hard to go against medical expert advice, even if I
have a much better understanding of my own personal behaviour.
On 18/07/2025 11:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:49 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 04:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? Can >>>>> you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking >>>>>>>> about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them >>>>>>>> talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it. >>>>>
I don't care to be regaled by work colleagues, male or famale, with
details of their sexual activities.
Is that in any way unacceptable?
The question was *why* you dislike it or want it to be avoided. What is >>> it within you that makes it distasteful?
That's dificult to say. If not actually innate, it's probably a result
of a moral upbringing.
Could be jealousy.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:me0v38FtgktU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 18:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mdus0sFit5fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have >>>>>>> discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update >>>>>>> ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need to
take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must have been
something
that warranted a biopsy.
High PSA readings, which can give rise to biopsies,,"just to be on the safe side"
are noted for giving false positives in some situations.
And there must have been something that warranted a PSA test. As far as I'm aware,
it's not just part of the ordinary, routine blood test.
At specific ages everyone is invited to take part in a cardiac screening programme
which includes blood tests which as it turned out included PSA. Hence my subsequent
biopsy Without my having shown any symptoms at all Either before or since.
On 19/07/2025 08:16 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 18:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mdus0sFit5fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have >>>>>>> discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to >>>>>>> update
ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take >>>>>> or need to take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must
have been something
that warranted a biopsy.
High PSA readings, which can give rise to biopsies,,"just to be on the
safe side"
are noted for giving false positives in some situations.
And there must have been something that warranted a PSA test. As far as
I'm aware, it's not just part of the ordinary, routine blood test.
Generally, and AIUI, it is done annually for men suffering from benign hypertrophy of the prostate. A worthwhile precaution.
On 18/07/2025 16:23, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:04, Spike wrote:
The civilians in Gaza (with a handful of exceptions) did not sow the wind, >>>> Hamas did.
Trace the conversation above back to where I referred to the attack on >>>> October 7th and follow it from there.
And that is a genocidal attitude.
Not when applied to Hamas.
Maybe you have misunderstood what he said. Or else, you don't much care >>>>> if genocide is inflicted on Gaza.
I’m afraid that you seem to have misread or misunderstood this part of the
discussion.
I think you've wholly misunderstood what's happening in Gaza.
And in my turn, I think you have totally failed to grasp what is happening >> in Gaza.
Try this for non-BBC reporting:
<https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/battling-survive-hamas-faces-defiant-clans-doubts-over-iran-2025-06-27/>
If you had listened to the Today programme yesterday, you would have
learnt that the latest IDF ruse is to blow the bollocks off teenage
Gazan boys.
Clearly they have a Plan.
On 18/07/2025 10:41 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 18:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mdus0sFit5fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have >>>>>>> discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to >>>>>>> update ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take >>>>>> or need to take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must
have been something that warranted a biopsy.
High PSA readings, which can give rise to biopsies,,"just to be on the
safe side"
are noted for giving false positives in some situations.
Indeed.
"some experts have suggested that PSA testing causes more harm than
good, saying it can lead to unnecessary biopsies and therapies for
cancers that actually don’t need to be treated."
https://www.mskcc.org/news/myths-about-psa-tests-and-prostate-cancer- screening
AIUI, one of the reasons for cancers getting beyond treatment is that
the patient does not seek medical advice or attention until the disease
is too well advanced for effective therapy.
On 19/07/2025 03:11 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:49 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 04:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided?Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking >>>>>>>>> about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them >>>>>>>>> talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it. >>>>>>
Can
you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
I don't care to be regaled by work colleagues, male or famale, with
details of their sexual activities.
Is that in any way unacceptable?
The question was *why* you dislike it or want it to be avoided.
What is
it within you that makes it distasteful?
That's dificult to say. If not actually innate, it's probably a result
of a moral upbringing.
Could be jealousy.
On whose part?
On 18/07/2025 11:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:49 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 04:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? Can >>>>> you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought >>>>>>>>> to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking >>>>>>>> about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them >>>>>>>> talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it. >>>>>
I don't care to be regaled by work colleagues, male or famale, with
details of their sexual activities.
Is that in any way unacceptable?
The question was *why* you dislike it or want it to be avoided. What is >>> it within you that makes it distasteful?
That's dificult to say. If not actually innate, it's probably a result
of a moral upbringing.
Please tell me why it's unnacceptable.
It's just not open-minded. Why should honest discussion of anything be off-limits in a free society?
On 19/07/2025 13:43, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:me0v38FtgktU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 18:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mdus0sFit5fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have >>>>>>>> discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update
ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need to
take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must have been
something
that warranted a biopsy.
High PSA readings, which can give rise to biopsies,,"just to be on the safe
side"
are noted for giving false positives in some situations.
And there must have been something that warranted a PSA test. As far as I'm >>> aware,
it's not just part of the ordinary, routine blood test.
At specific ages everyone is invited to take part in a cardiac screening
programme
which includes blood tests which as it turned out included PSA. Hence my
subsequent
biopsy Without my having shown any symptoms at all Either before or since.
Well, the current information from the NHS website is:
"Routine PSA testing is not offered on the NHS.
You may be offered a PSA test if a doctor thinks you have symptoms that
could be prostate cancer."
https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/psa-test/
I don't think it's ever been part of a normal, routine blood test, and
of course it has nothing at all to do with cardiac health so it's a bit
of a mystery how or why you had one.
On 19/07/2025 13:43, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:me0v38FtgktU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 18:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mdus0sFit5fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have >>>>>>>> discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update
ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need to
take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must have been
something
that warranted a biopsy.
High PSA readings, which can give rise to biopsies,,"just to be on the safe side"
are noted for giving false positives in some situations.
And there must have been something that warranted a PSA test. As far as I'm aware,
it's not just part of the ordinary, routine blood test.
At specific ages everyone is invited to take part in a cardiac screening programme
which includes blood tests which as it turned out included PSA. Hence my subsequent
biopsy Without my having shown any symptoms at all Either before or since.
Well, the current information from the NHS website is:
"Routine PSA testing is not offered on the NHS.
You may be offered a PSA test if a doctor thinks you have symptoms that could be
prostate cancer."
https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/psa-test/
I don't think it's ever been part of a normal, routine blood test, and of course it has
nothing at all to do with cardiac health so it's a bit of a mystery how or why you had
one.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 16:23, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:04, Spike wrote:
The civilians in Gaza (with a handful of exceptions) did not sow the wind,
Hamas did.
Trace the conversation above back to where I referred to the attack on >>>>> October 7th and follow it from there.
And that is a genocidal attitude.
Not when applied to Hamas.
Maybe you have misunderstood what he said. Or else, you don't much care >>>>>> if genocide is inflicted on Gaza.
I’m afraid that you seem to have misread or misunderstood this part of the
discussion.
I think you've wholly misunderstood what's happening in Gaza.
And in my turn, I think you have totally failed to grasp what is happening >>> in Gaza.
Try this for non-BBC reporting:
<https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/battling-survive-hamas-faces-defiant-clans-doubts-over-iran-2025-06-27/>
If you had listened to the Today programme yesterday, you would have
learnt that the latest IDF ruse is to blow the bollocks off teenage
Gazan boys.
Ah…the BBC…that bastion of balanced reporting…not.
I usually listen to the Today programme, its bias is something wonderful to behold.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:me1rn9F3j5gU2@mid.individual.net...
On 19/07/2025 13:43, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in messageWell, the current information from the NHS website is:
news:me0v38FtgktU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 18:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mdus0sFit5fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have >>>>>>>>> discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update
ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need to
take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must have been
something
that warranted a biopsy.
High PSA readings, which can give rise to biopsies,,"just to be on the >>>>> safe side"
are noted for giving false positives in some situations.
And there must have been something that warranted a PSA test. As far as I'm
aware,
it's not just part of the ordinary, routine blood test.
At specific ages everyone is invited to take part in a cardiac screening >>> programme
which includes blood tests which as it turned out included PSA. Hence my >>> subsequent
biopsy Without my having shown any symptoms at all Either before or since. >>
"Routine PSA testing is not offered on the NHS.
You may be offered a PSA test if a doctor thinks you have symptoms that could
be
prostate cancer."
https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/psa-test/
I don't think it's ever been part of a normal, routine blood test, and of
course it has
nothing at all to do with cardiac health so it's a bit of a mystery how or >> why you had
one.
Cardiac Health was the main target area; as that was, and is, a main cause
of death.
Yes ?
And while they've got patients in there,, they may as well screen them for other major causes of death, for men in their 50's and 60's ; such as Prostate Cancer.
Yes ?
Penny dropped yet ?
Unless you think it makes sense to only *screen* people, for conditions
for which they're already showing symptoms
bb
Defund the BBC!
On 18/07/2025 22:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:49 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 04:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided?
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought >>>>>>>>>> to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking >>>>>>>>> about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them >>>>>>>>> talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it. >>>>>>
Can
you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
I don't care to be regaled by work colleagues, male or famale, with
details of their sexual activities.
Is that in any way unacceptable?
The question was *why* you dislike it or want it to be avoided.
What is
it within you that makes it distasteful?
That's dificult to say. If not actually innate, it's probably a
result of a moral upbringing.
Please tell me why it's unnacceptable.
It's just not open-minded. Why should honest discussion of anything
be off-limits in a free society?
From The Times today. A piece by Aasmah Mir. Maybe if you make an
effort you will understand how sexualised remarks can make people,
especially women, feel uncomfortable and humiliated.
quote
I was astonished in 2017 when I took part in Celebrity MasterChef and
Gregg Wallace referred to a colleague of mine at the BBC as a “sexy bitch”. He did this on set in front of a whole crew and cameras,
standing next to John Torode.
In the early 2000s, I was at a social event with BBC colleagues and a
sports correspondent joined the group. He was directly opposite me in
the circle. He was clutching a glass of champagne and scanned the group before his eyes rested on me. “Aaaahh, Aasmah, she makes you want to
come in your pants!” I froze and everything went quiet. The group
dispersed and I stumbled away.
Ten minutes later the boss came running up to me and said: “Aasmah,
sorry about that. Don’t take him too seriously — it’s just his persona.”
His words may not have been completely right but at least he
acknowledged it and apologised — not like on MasterChef.
You might be thinking that the incidents I relate are ancient history
and we have moved on from all this sort of thing. But we haven’t. Just
this week I heard that there is a current TV production (not one of Banijay’s) where the presenter behaves so badly that they have to have a chaperone, presumably so staff and guests are protected from the worst
of their behaviour.
I know there has long been a convention in TV that bad behaviour has to
be tolerated from some of these stars because they are “flawed
geniuses”, “mercurial”, “eccentric” or a “bit of a character”. No one
wants TV to be full of bland identikit automatons, we want them to be exceptional, to have that extra something, but that doesn’t have to go
hand in hand with bad behaviour such as bullying or sexual harassment.
Surely that’s possible?
On 19/07/2025 16:44, Spike wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 16:23, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:04, Spike wrote:
The civilians in Gaza (with a handful of exceptions) did not sow the wind,
Hamas did.
Trace the conversation above back to where I referred to the attack on >>>>>> October 7th and follow it from there.
And that is a genocidal attitude.
Not when applied to Hamas.
Maybe you have misunderstood what he said. Or else, you don't much care >>>>>>> if genocide is inflicted on Gaza.
I’m afraid that you seem to have misread or misunderstood this part of the
discussion.
I think you've wholly misunderstood what's happening in Gaza.
And in my turn, I think you have totally failed to grasp what is happening >>>> in Gaza.
Try this for non-BBC reporting:
<https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/battling-survive-hamas-faces-defiant-clans-doubts-over-iran-2025-06-27/>
If you had listened to the Today programme yesterday, you would have
learnt that the latest IDF ruse is to blow the bollocks off teenage
Gazan boys.
Ah…the BBC…that bastion of balanced reporting…not.
I usually listen to the Today programme, its bias is something wonderful to >> behold.
It was actually a UK doctor reporting his and his colleagues' personal
and horrific experiences in a totally convincing way. He had no axe to grind.
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:me1rn9F3j5gU2@mid.individual.net...
On 19/07/2025 13:43, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in messageWell, the current information from the NHS website is:
news:me0v38FtgktU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 18:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mdus0sFit5fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have >>>>>>>>> discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to update
ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may take or need to
take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must have been
something that warranted a biopsy.
High PSA readings, which can give rise to biopsies,,"just to be on the safe side"
are noted for giving false positives in some situations.
And there must have been something that warranted a PSA test. As far as I'm aware,
it's not just part of the ordinary, routine blood test.
At specific ages everyone is invited to take part in a cardiac screening programme
which includes blood tests which as it turned out included PSA. Hence my subsequent
biopsy Without my having shown any symptoms at all Either before or since. >>
"Routine PSA testing is not offered on the NHS.
You may be offered a PSA test if a doctor thinks you have symptoms that could be
prostate cancer."
https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/psa-test/
I don't think it's ever been part of a normal, routine blood test, and of course it has
nothing at all to do with cardiac health so it's a bit of a mystery how or why you had
one.
Cardiac Health was the main target area; as that was, and is, a main cause
of death.
Yes ?
And while they've got patients in there,, they may as well screen them for other major causes of death, for men in their 50's and 60's ; such as Prostate Cancer.
Yes ?
Penny dropped yet ?
Unless you think it makes sense to only *screen* people, for conditions
for which they're already showing symptoms
On 18/07/2025 22:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:49 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 04:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided?
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely ought >>>>>>>>>> to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking >>>>>>>>> about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them >>>>>>>>> talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it. >>>>>>
Can
you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
I don't care to be regaled by work colleagues, male or famale, with
details of their sexual activities.
Is that in any way unacceptable?
The question was *why* you dislike it or want it to be avoided.
What is
it within you that makes it distasteful?
That's dificult to say. If not actually innate, it's probably a
result of a moral upbringing.
Please tell me why it's unnacceptable.
It's just not open-minded. Why should honest discussion of anything
be off-limits in a free society?
From The Times today. A piece by Aasmah Mir. Maybe if you make an
effort you will understand how sexualised remarks can make people,
especially women, feel uncomfortable and humiliated.
quote
I was astonished in 2017 when I took part in Celebrity MasterChef and
Gregg Wallace referred to a colleague of mine at the BBC as a “sexy bitch”. He did this on set in front of a whole crew and cameras,
standing next to John Torode.
In the early 2000s, I was at a social event with BBC colleagues and a
sports correspondent joined the group. He was directly opposite me in
the circle. He was clutching a glass of champagne and scanned the group before his eyes rested on me. “Aaaahh, Aasmah, she makes you want to
come in your pants!” I froze and everything went quiet. The group
dispersed and I stumbled away.
Ten minutes later the boss came running up to me and said: “Aasmah,
sorry about that. Don’t take him too seriously — it’s just his persona.”
His words may not have been completely right but at least he
acknowledged it and apologised — not like on MasterChef.
You might be thinking that the incidents I relate are ancient history
and we have moved on from all this sort of thing. But we haven’t. Just
this week I heard that there is a current TV production (not one of Banijay’s) where the presenter behaves so badly that they have to have a chaperone, presumably so staff and guests are protected from the worst
of their behaviour.
I know there has long been a convention in TV that bad behaviour has to
be tolerated from some of these stars because they are “flawed
geniuses”, “mercurial”, “eccentric” or a “bit of a character”. No one
wants TV to be full of bland identikit automatons, we want them to be exceptional, to have that extra something, but that doesn’t have to go
hand in hand with bad behaviour such as bullying or sexual harassment.
Surely that’s possible?
It does make sense only screen people for things that you can improve the outcome of by finding them sooner. Only in particular circumstances does that apply to prostate cancer.
On 19/07/2025 13:43, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:me0v38FtgktU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 18:30, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:mdus0sFit5fU1@mid.individual.net...
On 18/07/2025 09:44, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:mdtgafFbvjhU2@mid.individual.net...
On 17/07/2025 05:58 PM, Pancho wrote:
I had a prostate biopsy a few weeks ago (result negative). I have >>>>>>>> discussed my recent ejaculations at a social event. I'm happy to >>>>>>>> update
ulm readers if they are interested.
My best wishes for a speedy recovery in whatever form that may
take or need to
take.
The result was *negative*.
Doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with you. After all, there must
have been
something
that warranted a biopsy.
High PSA readings, which can give rise to biopsies,,"just to be on
the safe side"
are noted for giving false positives in some situations.
And there must have been something that warranted a PSA test. As far
as I'm aware,
it's not just part of the ordinary, routine blood test.
At specific ages everyone is invited to take part in a cardiac
screening programme
which includes blood tests which as it turned out included PSA. Hence
my subsequent
biopsy Without my having shown any symptoms at all Either before or
since.
Well, the current information from the NHS website is:
"Routine PSA testing is not offered on the NHS.
You may be offered a PSA test if a doctor thinks you have symptoms that
could be prostate cancer."
https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/psa-test/
I don't think it's ever been part of a normal, routine blood test, and
of course it has nothing at all to do with cardiac health so it's a bit
of a mystery how or why you had one.
On 19/07/2025 15:34, JNugent wrote:
On 19/07/2025 03:11 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:49 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 04:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? >>>>>>> CanMany people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking >>>>>>>>>> about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them >>>>>>>>>> talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it. >>>>>>>
you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
I don't care to be regaled by work colleagues, male or famale, with >>>>>> details of their sexual activities.
Is that in any way unacceptable?
The question was *why* you dislike it or want it to be avoided.
What is
it within you that makes it distasteful?
That's dificult to say. If not actually innate, it's probably a result >>>> of a moral upbringing.
Could be jealousy.
On whose part?
People who think they don't get enough.
Op 19/07/2025 om 23:32 schreef The Todal:
On 18/07/2025 22:25, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 11:36, JNugent wrote:
On 18/07/2025 08:49 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/07/2025 00:39, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 04:06 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 17/07/2025 14:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/07/2025 12:09 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:What would your reason be for disliking it or wanting it avoided? >>>>>>> Can
On 2025-07-16, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
Discussing your sex life and your sexual preferences surely >>>>>>>>>>> ought
to be
within close friendship circles only.
Why?
Many people are interested in sex. If we tolerate people talking >>>>>>>>>> about
religion, sport, music, or politics, why can't we tolerate them >>>>>>>>>> talking
about sex?
I suppose that within reason, we can. But we don't have to like it. >>>>>>>
you explain without sounding pathetic or Mrs Whitehouse?
I don't care to be regaled by work colleagues, male or famale, with >>>>>> details of their sexual activities.
Is that in any way unacceptable?
The question was *why* you dislike it or want it to be avoided.
What is
it within you that makes it distasteful?
That's dificult to say. If not actually innate, it's probably a
result of a moral upbringing.
Please tell me why it's unnacceptable.
It's just not open-minded. Why should honest discussion of anything
be off-limits in a free society?
From The Times today. A piece by Aasmah Mir. Maybe if you make an
effort you will understand how sexualised remarks can make people,
especially women, feel uncomfortable and humiliated.
quote
I was astonished in 2017 when I took part in Celebrity MasterChef and
Gregg Wallace referred to a colleague of mine at the BBC as a “sexy
bitch”. He did this on set in front of a whole crew and cameras,
standing next to John Torode.
In the early 2000s, I was at a social event with BBC colleagues and a
sports correspondent joined the group. He was directly opposite me in
the circle. He was clutching a glass of champagne and scanned the
group before his eyes rested on me. “Aaaahh, Aasmah, she makes you
want to come in your pants!” I froze and everything went quiet. The
group dispersed and I stumbled away.
Ten minutes later the boss came running up to me and said: “Aasmah,
sorry about that. Don’t take him too seriously — it’s just his persona.”
His words may not have been completely right but at least he
acknowledged it and apologised — not like on MasterChef.
You might be thinking that the incidents I relate are ancient history
and we have moved on from all this sort of thing. But we haven’t. Just
this week I heard that there is a current TV production (not one of
Banijay’s) where the presenter behaves so badly that they have to have
a chaperone, presumably so staff and guests are protected from the
worst of their behaviour.
I know there has long been a convention in TV that bad behaviour has
to be tolerated from some of these stars because they are “flawed
geniuses”, “mercurial”, “eccentric” or a “bit of a character”. No one
wants TV to be full of bland identikit automatons, we want them to be
exceptional, to have that extra something, but that doesn’t have to go
hand in hand with bad behaviour such as bullying or sexual harassment.
Surely that’s possible?
Russell Brand used to say this and much worse, yet he was the darling of
the Guardianistas and the hero of the revolution. What were the woke feminists doing back then? Baking fruit scones?
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 16:44, Spike wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 16:23, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:04, Spike wrote:
The civilians in Gaza (with a handful of exceptions) did not sow the wind,
Hamas did.
Trace the conversation above back to where I referred to the attack on >>>>>>> October 7th and follow it from there.
And that is a genocidal attitude.
Not when applied to Hamas.
Maybe you have misunderstood what he said. Or else, you don't much care
if genocide is inflicted on Gaza.
I’m afraid that you seem to have misread or misunderstood this part of the
discussion.
I think you've wholly misunderstood what's happening in Gaza.
And in my turn, I think you have totally failed to grasp what is happening
in Gaza.
Try this for non-BBC reporting:
<https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/battling-survive-hamas-faces-defiant-clans-doubts-over-iran-2025-06-27/>
If you had listened to the Today programme yesterday, you would have
learnt that the latest IDF ruse is to blow the bollocks off teenage
Gazan boys.
Ah…the BBC…that bastion of balanced reporting…not.
I usually listen to the Today programme, its bias is something wonderful to >>> behold.
It was actually a UK doctor reporting his and his colleagues' personal
and horrific experiences in a totally convincing way. He had no axe to
grind.
Fair enough, I didn’t hear that particular programme.
I expect the doctor could have reported on much the same thing had he
served in Ukraine’s bombarded cities, such as happens as a result of the Russians training their bomber-drone operators by bombing civilians in the streets of Kherson, and which was doubtless very similar to what I read in books published after WWII, that happened all sides of the conflicts.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 16:44, Spike wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 16:23, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:04, Spike wrote:
The civilians in Gaza (with a handful of exceptions) did not sow the wind,
Hamas did.
Trace the conversation above back to where I referred to the attack on >>>>>>> October 7th and follow it from there.
And that is a genocidal attitude.
Not when applied to Hamas.
Maybe you have misunderstood what he said. Or else, you don't much care
if genocide is inflicted on Gaza.
I’m afraid that you seem to have misread or misunderstood this part of the
discussion.
I think you've wholly misunderstood what's happening in Gaza.
And in my turn, I think you have totally failed to grasp what is happening
in Gaza.
Try this for non-BBC reporting:
<https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/battling-survive-hamas-faces-defiant-clans-doubts-over-iran-2025-06-27/>
If you had listened to the Today programme yesterday, you would have
learnt that the latest IDF ruse is to blow the bollocks off teenage
Gazan boys.
Ah…the BBC…that bastion of balanced reporting…not.
I usually listen to the Today programme, its bias is something wonderful to >>> behold.
It was actually a UK doctor reporting his and his colleagues' personal
and horrific experiences in a totally convincing way. He had no axe to
grind.
Fair enough, I didn’t hear that particular programme.
I expect the doctor could have reported on much the same thing had he
served in Ukraine’s bombarded cities, such as happens as a result of the Russians training their bomber-drone operators by bombing civilians in the streets of Kherson, and which was doubtless very similar to what I read in books published after WWII, that happened all sides of the conflicts.
On 20/07/2025 01:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
It does make sense only screen people for things that you can improve the
outcome of by finding them sooner. Only in particular circumstances
does that
apply to prostate cancer.
One of those cases is finding prostate cancer before it metastasises.
The main problem is that PSA is not very specific.
There's something to be said for having regular PSA tests, so you can
see the trend. A one-off test isn't so helpful, but a change in the
trend is worth investigating. There's a trend because most men get BPH.
On 20/07/2025 10:35, GB wrote:
On 20/07/2025 01:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
It does make sense only screen people for things that you can improve
the
outcome of by finding them sooner. Only in particular circumstances
does that
apply to prostate cancer.
One of those cases is finding prostate cancer before it metastasises.
The main problem is that PSA is not very specific.
There's something to be said for having regular PSA tests, so you can
see the trend. A one-off test isn't so helpful, but a change in the
trend is worth investigating. There's a trend because most men get BPH.
Quite so. The question is whether that trend actually means anything,
and whether it distinguishes prostate cancer from BHP, which I don't
think it does.
In any case, prostate cancer is usually so slow growing that men are
rather more likely to die with it (it's very common) than of it.
The only sure way to know if you have prostate cancer is to have the
whole thing removed, cut up in a bowl and analysed by pathology. But
that's a bit drastic unless you know you have cancer which you won't
until you have it removed.
You can't screen everybody all the time for everything.
The cost would be prohibitive. In your case it seems to have led only to a false
positive and an unnecessary biopsy so was probably counterproductive as well as
uncomfortable and a waste of resources.
On 20/07/2025 09:22, Spike wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 19/07/2025 16:44, Spike wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 18/07/2025 16:23, Spike wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/07/2025 17:04, Spike wrote:
The civilians in Gaza (with a handful of exceptions) did not sow >>>>>>>> the wind,
Hamas did.
Trace the conversation above back to where I referred to the
attack on
October 7th and follow it from there.
And that is a genocidal attitude.
Not when applied to Hamas.
Maybe you have misunderstood what he said. Or else, you don't >>>>>>>>> much care
if genocide is inflicted on Gaza.
I’m afraid that you seem to have misread or misunderstood this >>>>>>>> part of the
discussion.
I think you've wholly misunderstood what's happening in Gaza.
And in my turn, I think you have totally failed to grasp what is
happening
in Gaza.
Try this for non-BBC reporting:
<https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/battling-survive-hamas-faces-defiant-clans-doubts-over-iran-2025-06-27/>
If you had listened to the Today programme yesterday, you would have >>>>> learnt that the latest IDF ruse is to blow the bollocks off teenage
Gazan boys.
Ah…the BBC…that bastion of balanced reporting…not.
I usually listen to the Today programme, its bias is something
wonderful to
behold.
It was actually a UK doctor reporting his and his colleagues' personal
and horrific experiences in a totally convincing way. He had no axe to
grind.
Fair enough, I didn’t hear that particular programme.
I expect the doctor could have reported on much the same thing had he
served in Ukraine’s bombarded cities, such as happens as a result of the >> Russians training their bomber-drone operators by bombing civilians in
the
streets of Kherson, and which was doubtless very similar to what I
read in
books published after WWII, that happened all sides of the conflicts.
You may care to listen to the interview, and despair, which I've now
found on the Independent's website:
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/israel-gaza-war-children-british-doctor-video-b2792054.html
On 20/07/2025 09:22, Spike wrote:
[...]
I don't think so. He was reporting on the injuries he and his
colleagues saw day by day in hospital, and he said it was very
apparent that the IDF were playing games targetting arms and legs for
a few days, then heads and necks, then backs, then genitals. The
injuries came in very obvious waves.
If you can't find the interview, which should still be available on
the BBC site, there are a couple of articles here:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/ international-doctors-gaza-says-palestinian-teens-being-shot-genitals
and
https://tinyurl.com/w62d66ts
On 20/07/2025 10:35, GB wrote:
On 20/07/2025 01:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
It does make sense only screen people for things that you can improve
the
outcome of by finding them sooner. Only in particular circumstances
does that
apply to prostate cancer.
One of those cases is finding prostate cancer before it metastasises.
The main problem is that PSA is not very specific.
There's something to be said for having regular PSA tests, so you can
see the trend. A one-off test isn't so helpful, but a change in the
trend is worth investigating. There's a trend because most men get BPH.
Quite so. The question is whether that trend actually means anything,
and whether it distinguishes prostate cancer from BHP, which I don't
think it does.
In any case, prostate cancer is usually so slow growing that men are
rather more likely to die with it (it's very common) than of it.
The only sure way to know if you have prostate cancer is to have the
whole thing removed, cut up in a bowl and analysed by pathology. But
that's a bit drastic unless you know you have cancer which you won't
until you have it removed.
On 12:37 20 Jul 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 20/07/2025 09:22, Spike wrote:
[...]
I don't think so. He was reporting on the injuries he and his
colleagues saw day by day in hospital, and he said it was very
apparent that the IDF were playing games targetting arms and legs for
a few days, then heads and necks, then backs, then genitals. The
injuries came in very obvious waves.
If you can't find the interview, which should still be available on
the BBC site, there are a couple of articles here:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/
international-doctors-gaza-says-palestinian-teens-being-shot-genitals
and
https://tinyurl.com/w62d66ts
It writes:
"teenage boys, are arriving with gunshot wounds to the same part of
the body." "Most recently, teenage boys are arriving in the
hospitals all shot in the testicles".
Such an outcome requires close enagagement, which doesn't sound like
IDF troops amongst the Gazans at all. Instead it smacks of inter-clan punishment and disciplinary shootings, which can be viewed in video
clips online.
One problem with prostate surgery is that it often leaves the patient impotent, unable to have satisfactory erections.
On 20/07/2025 12:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/07/2025 10:35, GB wrote:
On 20/07/2025 01:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
It does make sense only screen people for things that you can
improve the
outcome of by finding them sooner. Only in particular circumstances
does that
apply to prostate cancer.
One of those cases is finding prostate cancer before it metastasises.
The main problem is that PSA is not very specific.
There's something to be said for having regular PSA tests, so you can
see the trend. A one-off test isn't so helpful, but a change in the
trend is worth investigating. There's a trend because most men get BPH.
Quite so. The question is whether that trend actually means anything,
and whether it distinguishes prostate cancer from BHP, which I don't
think it does.
That's why I suggested getting tested regularly. If there's normally an annual increase in PSA of say 5%, but one year that becomes 15%, it
would be a good idea to investigate further.
The first stage would be a repeat of the PSA test a couple of months
later, as PSA can increase due to things like exercise.
An MRI scan may be next.
Then, if warranted, a biopsy. The biopsy will
take around 20-30 samples from different parts of the prostate. Given
that most prostates are well under 100mls, you'd be extraordinarily
unlucky to have that many samples taken but for cancer to be missed.
In any case, prostate cancer is usually so slow growing that men are
rather more likely to die with it (it's very common) than of it.
There's an amazing statistic that 30-50% of elderly male cadavers have prostate cancer. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4485977/
So, in most cases, it's slow growing and doesn't kill people.
But there are virulent varieties as well. 12000 men die from it in this country every year. That's nearly 5% of all male deaths. Prostate cancer tends to end up in the bones, so it's a particularly painful way to die.
Personally, I ask my GP to keep an eye on my PSA. It's not an expensive
test for the NHS to undertake.
On 20/07/2025 12:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/07/2025 10:35, GB wrote:One problem with prostate surgery is that it often leaves the patient impotent, unable to have satisfactory erections. Emissions of semen are
On 20/07/2025 01:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
It does make sense only screen people for things that you can improveOne of those cases is finding prostate cancer before it metastasises.
the outcome of by finding them sooner. Only in particular
circumstances does that apply to prostate cancer.
The main problem is that PSA is not very specific.
There's something to be said for having regular PSA tests, so you can
see the trend. A one-off test isn't so helpful, but a change in the
trend is worth investigating. There's a trend because most men get
BPH.
Quite so. The question is whether that trend actually means anything,
and whether it distinguishes prostate cancer from BHP, which I don't
think it does.
In any case, prostate cancer is usually so slow growing that men are
rather more likely to die with it (it's very common) than of it.
The only sure way to know if you have prostate cancer is to have the
whole thing removed, cut up in a bowl and analysed by pathology. But
that's a bit drastic unless you know you have cancer which you won't
until you have it removed.
a minor consideration for most men - a man who cannot have erections
will believe that he can no longer provide sexual satisfaction to his partner, who will no longer love him, who may leave him. Viagra doesn't always help.
You might say that men should learn how to provide sexual satisfaction
which doesn't necessarily involve penetrative sex. But many men are
unwilling to explore those possibilities, firmly believing that only penetrative sex can ever satisfy their partner.
On 20/07/2025 15:41, Pamela wrote:
On 12:37 20 Jul 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 20/07/2025 09:22, Spike wrote:
[...]
I don't think so. He was reporting on the injuries he and his
colleagues saw day by day in hospital, and he said it was very
apparent that the IDF were playing games targetting arms and legs for
a few days, then heads and necks, then backs, then genitals. The
injuries came in very obvious waves.
If you can't find the interview, which should still be available on
the BBC site, there are a couple of articles here:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/
international-doctors-gaza-says-palestinian-teens-being-shot-genitals
and
https://tinyurl.com/w62d66ts
It writes:
"teenage boys, are arriving with gunshot wounds to the same part of
the body." "Most recently, teenage boys are arriving in the
hospitals all shot in the testicles".
Such an outcome requires close enagagement, which doesn't sound like
IDF troops amongst the Gazans at all. Instead it smacks of inter-clan
punishment and disciplinary shootings, which can be viewed in video
clips online.
And you think they change the areas of the body they target on a daily
basis as the doctors observed?
Why would they do that?
On 20 Jul 2025 at 18:23:08 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 20/07/2025 15:41, Pamela wrote:
On 12:37 20 Jul 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 20/07/2025 09:22, Spike wrote:
[...]
I don't think so. He was reporting on the injuries he and his
colleagues saw day by day in hospital, and he said it was very
apparent that the IDF were playing games targetting arms and legs for
a few days, then heads and necks, then backs, then genitals. The
injuries came in very obvious waves.
If you can't find the interview, which should still be available on
the BBC site, there are a couple of articles here:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/
international-doctors-gaza-says-palestinian-teens-being-shot-genitals
and
https://tinyurl.com/w62d66ts
It writes:
"teenage boys, are arriving with gunshot wounds to the same part of >>> the body." "Most recently, teenage boys are arriving in the
hospitals all shot in the testicles".
Such an outcome requires close enagagement, which doesn't sound like
IDF troops amongst the Gazans at all. Instead it smacks of inter-clan
punishment and disciplinary shootings, which can be viewed in video
clips online.
And you think they change the areas of the body they target on a daily
basis as the doctors observed?
Why would they do that?
For somewhat the same reason as police choose to stop random red cars one day;
a game, easy to play when dealing with people one is contemptuous of.
On 12:37 20 Jul 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 20/07/2025 09:22, Spike wrote:
[...]
I don't think so. He was reporting on the injuries he and his
colleagues saw day by day in hospital, and he said it was very
apparent that the IDF were playing games targetting arms and legs for
a few days, then heads and necks, then backs, then genitals. The
injuries came in very obvious waves.
If you can't find the interview, which should still be available on
the BBC site, there are a couple of articles here:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/
international-doctors-gaza-says-palestinian-teens-being-shot-genitals
and
https://tinyurl.com/w62d66ts
It writes:
"teenage boys, are arriving with gunshot wounds to the same part of
the body." "Most recently, teenage boys are arriving in the
hospitals all shot in the testicles".
Such an outcome requires close enagagement, which doesn't sound like
IDF troops amongst the Gazans at all. Instead it smacks of inter-clan punishment and disciplinary shootings, which can be viewed in video
clips online. Spike's link above mentions clan fighting in <mdv76qFkph2U1@mid.individual.net>
We use "Hamas" for convenience to embrace all militants in Gaza but
there are several armed clans. At the start of this war there were at
least half a dozen major militant groups, of which Hamas's Al-Qassam
Brigades were only one However all got lumped together in any reference
but now they are falling out with each other.
www.newsweek.com/not-only-hamas-eight-factions-war-israel-gaza-1841292
In addition, there are false claims by Hamas's propaganda ministry
about who is responsible for civilian deaths in recent weeks. Hamas is starting to panic about loss of control over aid supplies, which it
used to loot and sell for its own finances or as a means of exerting
control over the civilian population.
On 20/07/2025 16:03, GB wrote:
On 20/07/2025 12:55, Norman Wells wrote:
On 20/07/2025 10:35, GB wrote:
On 20/07/2025 01:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
It does make sense only screen people for things that you can
improve the
outcome of by finding them sooner. Only in particular circumstances
does that
apply to prostate cancer.
One of those cases is finding prostate cancer before it
metastasises. The main problem is that PSA is not very specific.
There's something to be said for having regular PSA tests, so you
can see the trend. A one-off test isn't so helpful, but a change in
the trend is worth investigating. There's a trend because most men
get BPH.
Quite so. The question is whether that trend actually means
anything, and whether it distinguishes prostate cancer from BHP,
which I don't think it does.
That's why I suggested getting tested regularly. If there's normally
an annual increase in PSA of say 5%, but one year that becomes 15%, it
would be a good idea to investigate further.
The first stage would be a repeat of the PSA test a couple of months
later, as PSA can increase due to things like exercise.
An MRI scan may be next.
Which is very little improvement over PSA testing which itself is almost completely unreliable.
Then, if warranted, a biopsy. The biopsy will take around 20-30
samples from different parts of the prostate. Given that most
prostates are well under 100mls, you'd be extraordinarily unlucky to
have that many samples taken but for cancer to be missed.
Depends (a) if you have it, (b) how big it is and (c) where it's hiding.
A negative result doesn't mean you don't have it.
In any case, prostate cancer is usually so slow growing that men are
rather more likely to die with it (it's very common) than of it.
There's an amazing statistic that 30-50% of elderly male cadavers have
prostate cancer. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4485977/
So, in most cases, it's slow growing and doesn't kill people.
But there are virulent varieties as well. 12000 men die from it in
this country every year. That's nearly 5% of all male deaths. Prostate
cancer tends to end up in the bones, so it's a particularly painful
way to die.
Personally, I ask my GP to keep an eye on my PSA. It's not an
expensive test for the NHS to undertake.
The worried well will monitor anything and everything if they can.
"In 2017, research by Imperial College London discovered that the
worried well in the UK may be costing £56,000,000 to the National Health Service because of unnecessary appointments with general practitioners.
They estimated that up to 1 in 5 people attending medical clinics had abnormal health anxiety, which has possibly been worsened with the
increase in cyberchondria — people who have researched their symptoms online and use it as evidence that they have a life-threatening disease".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worried_well
One problem with prostate surgery is that it often leaves the patient impotent, unable to have satisfactory erections. Emissions of semen are
a minor consideration for most men - a man who cannot have erections
will believe that he can no longer provide sexual satisfaction to his partner, who will no longer love him, who may leave him. Viagra doesn't always help.
You might say that men should learn how to provide sexual satisfaction
which doesn't necessarily involve penetrative sex. But many men are
unwilling to explore those possibilities, firmly believing that only penetrative sex can ever satisfy their partner.
On 20/07/2025 15:41, Pamela wrote:
On 12:37 20 Jul 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 20/07/2025 09:22, Spike wrote:
[...]
I don't think so. He was reporting on the injuries he and his
colleagues saw day by day in hospital, and he said it was very
apparent that the IDF were playing games targetting arms and legs
for a few days, then heads and necks, then backs, then genitals.
The injuries came in very obvious waves.
If you can't find the interview, which should still be available on
the BBC site, there are a couple of articles here:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/
international-doctors-gaza-says-palestinian-teens-being-shot-
genitals
and
https://tinyurl.com/w62d66ts
It writes:
"teenage boys, are arriving with gunshot wounds to the same part
of the body." "Most recently, teenage boys are arriving in the
hospitals all shot in the testicles".
Such an outcome requires close enagagement, which doesn't sound like
IDF troops amongst the Gazans at all. Instead it smacks of
inter-clan punishment and disciplinary shootings, which can be
viewed in video clips online.
And you think they change the areas of the body they target on a
daily basis as the doctors observed?
Why would they do that?
On 20/07/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
One problem with prostate surgery is that it often leaves the patient
impotent, unable to have satisfactory erections.
A radical prostatectomy may also leave the patient incontinent. It's
quite common, but control often returns after 3 - 6 months.
However, taking that with impotence, you're making a good case for
checking your PSA regularly, I must say.
On 20/07/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
One problem with prostate surgery is that it often leaves the patient
impotent, unable to have satisfactory erections. Emissions of semen
are a minor consideration for most men - a man who cannot have
erections will believe that he can no longer provide sexual
satisfaction to his partner, who will no longer love him, who may
leave him. Viagra doesn't always help.
You might say that men should learn how to provide sexual satisfaction
which doesn't necessarily involve penetrative sex. But many men are
unwilling to explore those possibilities, firmly believing that only
penetrative sex can ever satisfy their partner.
Is that the only shortcoming of impotence you can think of?
On 20/07/2025 16:10, GB wrote:
On 20/07/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
One problem with prostate surgery is that it often leaves the patient
impotent, unable to have satisfactory erections.
A radical prostatectomy may also leave the patient incontinent. It's
quite common, but control often returns after 3 - 6 months.
However, taking that with impotence, you're making a good case for
checking your PSA regularly, I must say.
A lot of eminent scientists would disagree, especially for men in
general, and it's certainly not recommended for over 70s.
On 21/07/2025 12:07, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/07/2025 16:10, GB wrote:
On 20/07/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
One problem with prostate surgery is that it often leaves the
patient impotent, unable to have satisfactory erections.
A radical prostatectomy may also leave the patient incontinent. It's
quite common, but control often returns after 3 - 6 months.
However, taking that with impotence, you're making a good case for
checking your PSA regularly, I must say.
A lot of eminent scientists would disagree, especially for men in
general, and it's certainly not recommended for over 70s.
It would be interesting to know the rationale?
Perhaps, they are worried that testing PSA then leads on to further intervention, but that's not automatic. There's always 'watchful waiting'. [2]
On 21/07/2025 16:27, GB wrote:
On 21/07/2025 12:07, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/07/2025 16:10, GB wrote:
On 20/07/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
One problem with prostate surgery is that it often leaves the
patient impotent, unable to have satisfactory erections.
A radical prostatectomy may also leave the patient incontinent. It's
quite common, but control often returns after 3 - 6 months.
However, taking that with impotence, you're making a good case for
checking your PSA regularly, I must say.
A lot of eminent scientists would disagree, especially for men in
general, and it's certainly not recommended for over 70s.
It would be interesting to know the rationale?
Perhaps, they are worried that testing PSA then leads on to further
intervention, but that's not automatic. There's always 'watchful
waiting'. [2]
In general, it's considered that the disadvantages exceed the
advantages. Disadvantages including anxiety, false positives, false negatives, unnecessary tests, unnecessary treatment, radical
consequences of (especially surgical) treatment such as likely impotence
[1] and possible urinary incontinence.
Even if cancer occurs, the patient might die before it's serious enough
to cause any problems, which is probably why it's not advised for over 70s.
[2] "Watchful waiting" (whatever it means - sounds like "worrying that
you might be ill) could be extended anxiety depending on the individual.
On 21/07/2025 16:27, GB wrote:
On 21/07/2025 12:07, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/07/2025 16:10, GB wrote:
On 20/07/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
One problem with prostate surgery is that it often leaves the
patient impotent, unable to have satisfactory erections.
A radical prostatectomy may also leave the patient incontinent. It's
quite common, but control often returns after 3 - 6 months.
However, taking that with impotence, you're making a good case for
checking your PSA regularly, I must say.
A lot of eminent scientists would disagree, especially for men in
general, and it's certainly not recommended for over 70s.
It would be interesting to know the rationale?
Perhaps, they are worried that testing PSA then leads on to further
intervention, but that's not automatic. There's always 'watchful
waiting'. [2]
In general, it's considered that the disadvantages exceed the
advantages. Disadvantages including anxiety, false positives, false negatives, unnecessary tests, unnecessary treatment, radical
consequences of (especially surgical) treatment such as likely impotence
[1] and possible urinary incontinence.
Even if cancer occurs, the patient might die before it's serious enough
to cause any problems, which is probably why it's not advised for over 70s.
[1] The Todal doesn't seem to think male incontinence is too bad. Others might disagree.
[2] "Watchful waiting" (whatever it means - sounds like "worrying that
you might be ill) could be extended anxiety depending on the individual.
On 22/07/2025 12:23, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/07/2025 16:27, GB wrote:
On 21/07/2025 12:07, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/07/2025 16:10, GB wrote:
On 20/07/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
One problem with prostate surgery is that it often leaves the
patient impotent, unable to have satisfactory erections.
A radical prostatectomy may also leave the patient incontinent.
It's quite common, but control often returns after 3 - 6 months.
However, taking that with impotence, you're making a good case for
checking your PSA regularly, I must say.
A lot of eminent scientists would disagree, especially for men in
general, and it's certainly not recommended for over 70s.
It would be interesting to know the rationale?
Perhaps, they are worried that testing PSA then leads on to further
intervention, but that's not automatic. There's always 'watchful
waiting'. [2]
In general, it's considered that the disadvantages exceed the
advantages. Disadvantages including anxiety, false positives, false
negatives, unnecessary tests, unnecessary treatment, radical
consequences of (especially surgical) treatment such as likely
impotence [1] and possible urinary incontinence.
Even if cancer occurs, the patient might die before it's serious
enough to cause any problems, which is probably why it's not advised
for over 70s.
[1] The Todal doesn't seem to think male incontinence is too bad.
Others might disagree.
Eh? I haven't expressed any opinion about male incontinence. The issue
hasn't even been discussed here until now.
On 22/07/2025 18:24, The Todal wrote:
On 22/07/2025 12:23, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/07/2025 16:27, GB wrote:
On 21/07/2025 12:07, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/07/2025 16:10, GB wrote:
On 20/07/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
One problem with prostate surgery is that it often leaves the
patient impotent, unable to have satisfactory erections.
A radical prostatectomy may also leave the patient incontinent.
It's quite common, but control often returns after 3 - 6 months.
However, taking that with impotence, you're making a good case for >>>>>> checking your PSA regularly, I must say.
A lot of eminent scientists would disagree, especially for men in
general, and it's certainly not recommended for over 70s.
It would be interesting to know the rationale?
Perhaps, they are worried that testing PSA then leads on to further
intervention, but that's not automatic. There's always 'watchful
waiting'. [2]
In general, it's considered that the disadvantages exceed the
advantages. Disadvantages including anxiety, false positives, false
negatives, unnecessary tests, unnecessary treatment, radical
consequences of (especially surgical) treatment such as likely
impotence [1] and possible urinary incontinence.
Even if cancer occurs, the patient might die before it's serious
enough to cause any problems, which is probably why it's not advised
for over 70s.
[1] The Todal doesn't seem to think male incontinence is too bad.
Others might disagree.
Eh? I haven't expressed any opinion about male incontinence. The issue
hasn't even been discussed here until now.
Sorry, I meant to type male *impotence*.
On 22/07/2025 18:55, Max Demian wrote:
On 22/07/2025 18:24, The Todal wrote:
On 22/07/2025 12:23, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/07/2025 16:27, GB wrote:
On 21/07/2025 12:07, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/07/2025 16:10, GB wrote:
On 20/07/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
One problem with prostate surgery is that it often leaves the
patient impotent, unable to have satisfactory erections.
A radical prostatectomy may also leave the patient incontinent.
It's quite common, but control often returns after 3 - 6 months. >>>>>>>
However, taking that with impotence, you're making a good case
for checking your PSA regularly, I must say.
A lot of eminent scientists would disagree, especially for men in
general, and it's certainly not recommended for over 70s.
It would be interesting to know the rationale?
Perhaps, they are worried that testing PSA then leads on to further
intervention, but that's not automatic. There's always 'watchful
waiting'. [2]
In general, it's considered that the disadvantages exceed the
advantages. Disadvantages including anxiety, false positives, false
negatives, unnecessary tests, unnecessary treatment, radical
consequences of (especially surgical) treatment such as likely
impotence [1] and possible urinary incontinence.
Even if cancer occurs, the patient might die before it's serious
enough to cause any problems, which is probably why it's not advised
for over 70s.
[1] The Todal doesn't seem to think male incontinence is too bad.
Others might disagree.
Eh? I haven't expressed any opinion about male incontinence. The
issue hasn't even been discussed here until now.
Sorry, I meant to type male *impotence*.
Except that I didn't say it wasn't "too bad" and in fact I said it could
lead to the breakup of marriages and relationships which is, in fact,
pretty bad.
On 22/07/2025 20:02, The Todal wrote:
On 22/07/2025 18:55, Max Demian wrote:
On 22/07/2025 18:24, The Todal wrote:
On 22/07/2025 12:23, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/07/2025 16:27, GB wrote:
On 21/07/2025 12:07, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/07/2025 16:10, GB wrote:
On 20/07/2025 12:59, The Todal wrote:
One problem with prostate surgery is that it often leaves the >>>>>>>>> patient impotent, unable to have satisfactory erections.
A radical prostatectomy may also leave the patient incontinent. >>>>>>>> It's quite common, but control often returns after 3 - 6 months. >>>>>>>>
However, taking that with impotence, you're making a good case >>>>>>>> for checking your PSA regularly, I must say.
A lot of eminent scientists would disagree, especially for men in >>>>>>> general, and it's certainly not recommended for over 70s.
It would be interesting to know the rationale?
Perhaps, they are worried that testing PSA then leads on to
further intervention, but that's not automatic. There's always
'watchful waiting'. [2]
In general, it's considered that the disadvantages exceed the
advantages. Disadvantages including anxiety, false positives, false
negatives, unnecessary tests, unnecessary treatment, radical
consequences of (especially surgical) treatment such as likely
impotence [1] and possible urinary incontinence.
Even if cancer occurs, the patient might die before it's serious
enough to cause any problems, which is probably why it's not
advised for over 70s.
[1] The Todal doesn't seem to think male incontinence is too bad.
Others might disagree.
Eh? I haven't expressed any opinion about male incontinence. The
issue hasn't even been discussed here until now.
Sorry, I meant to type male *impotence*.
Except that I didn't say it wasn't "too bad" and in fact I said it
could lead to the breakup of marriages and relationships which is, in
fact, pretty bad.
But you downplayed the effect on the man, as if it's only the woman's satisfaction that matters. You said, "It is possible to get satisfactory orgasms without an erection." I suppose that might be true, but I've no
idea what you mean.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:44:56 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |